PDA

View Full Version : BCWF Promoting a Steelhead Hatchery for Bulkley & Retention On Haida Gwaii River



Lastcar
04-04-2016, 03:38 PM
Just saw this posted on FB from a very reliable source. Longtime advocate for our fisheries and sport fishing.

"So the BC Wildlife Federation, those fine fellows representing '50'000 hunters and fishers across the province' recently motioned, and a SFAB meeting (sportfish advisory) a STEELHEAD hatchery program for the Bulkley River and a wild fish Kill fishery on the Yakoun River on Haida Gwaii.Yes this is 2016 and no joke...somehow I seem to think they are trapped in 1972, which given the average members age, makes sense."

Be curious to hear about what the Fed's has to say. Why they think this is a good idea.

Seems insane to me. But I am by no means up to speed on the ins and outs of wellbeing of our steelhead and salmon.

First glance I am far from happy about this.

Fella
04-04-2016, 03:49 PM
Wasn't there a recent study that showed hatchery fish as being genetically inferior to wild? Doesn't it make more sense to preserve and protect wild populations rather than killing them if the populations can't sustain a kill fishery?

SPEYMAN
04-04-2016, 04:23 PM
Suggest the BCWF follow the lead of those that know and stop their determination to screw up the finest fishery in this Province.














Formed in 1970 by a group of dedicated Steelhead anglers concerned about the state of wild steelhead stocks and the wild rivers of British Columbia, the Steelhead Society is a charitable non-profit river conservation organization. The Society has evolved to advocate for the health of all wild salmonids and wild rivers in British Columbia.

Considered to be "one of the most important conservation organizations in North America", the Steelhead Society primarily consists of members from across North America, but has members from around the world. Our members' support, as well as private donations and monies raised through fundraising campaigns, funds advocacy actions and awareness in the public spectrum, and acts to encourage positive change in government and private enterprise.

What is the aim of the Steelhead Society?

The Steelhead Society's mandate is to encourage the conservation and restoration of wild fish and the wild rivers they inhabit. To this end, the Steelhead Society has been able to form alliances and partnerships with First Nations; Federal and Provincial government agencies, politicians, forestry companies, grass roots organizations, media, and outdoor equipment manufacturers.

These alliances encourage awareness of the sensitivity of watersheds and their inhabitants, with a unified goal of improving damaged habitats for the greater good of all involved parties.

The Steelhead Society is dedicated to the ongoing advocacy of environmental education, stream restoration, dam decommissioning options, maintaining flow rates, mitigating the effects of hatchery programs, effective control of the Aquaculture Industry, as well as holding government and public agencies responsible for the natural heritage rivers provide.

Society members have in common a dedication to protecting, enhancing and restoring BC's wild salmon and steelhead habitat.


Leave the wild stock alone, they managed themselves for thousands of years. Man made management has been a disaster.

Lastcar
04-04-2016, 04:27 PM
Wasn't there a recent study that showed hatchery fish as being genetically inferior to wild? Doesn't it make more sense to preserve and protect wild populations rather than killing them if the populations can't sustain a kill fishery?

Pretty sure the debate on hatchery vs wild will never end. Even if there are no wild fish left.

I think each side can find studies and arguments for both.

But yes, the scientific consensus seems to be wild is superior to hatchery.

From a sport fishery, naturally the more fish the better. Which is where some of the pressure comes from. I am not sure how much pressure we'd see for a hatchery if it wasn't for sport fishing. You don't see a ton done for the betterment of wildlife and nature unless there is a non government organization behind it.

Hatchery advocates see the demise or elimination of wild stocks as their opening to push the hatchery agenda with little resistance. Hatchery fish are better than no fish.

This all said, I sure seems like a losing battle for those on the side of wild fish. The policy makers are just piling on to whatever mother nature is adding to the equation as well. Although some would argue the bulk of the problem is manmade. Wouldn't take much to convince me of that.

And no, I don't mean climate change. Ample other habitat abuse and loss along with overfishing to tackle before injecting climate change arguments.

Ocean survivability seems to be a serious problem too.

But again, I am an armchair observer. Much smarter people than I can speak to it in more detail.

And interesting group to follow is http://www.nativefishsociety.org/ they seem to be accomplishing a ton for the wild fish in Oregon. Power in numbers I guess.

adriaticum
04-04-2016, 04:48 PM
Wasn't there a recent study that showed hatchery fish as being genetically inferior to wild? Doesn't it make more sense to preserve and protect wild populations rather than killing them if the populations can't sustain a kill fishery?



It's true. But this fact has nothing to do with the reality that poaching alone would eliminate many steelhead runs.
The law of supply and demand is simple.
If we didn't have hatcheries around LML there would be no fish to speak of now.

SPEYMAN
04-05-2016, 05:21 PM
The problem is that the old time, antiquated thinking of the BCWF is what stops many from joining. We must all be conservationists, environmentalists, protectors of our natural resources as well as being responsible hunters and fishers.

Philcott
04-06-2016, 06:55 AM
The problem is that the old time, antiquated thinking of the BCWF is what stops many from joining. We must all be conservationists, environmentalists, protectors of our natural resources as well as being responsible hunters and fishers.

The only way for the thinking to change is for some young bucks with new and un-antiquated thinking to join the federation then step up to the plate and bring in fresh ideas. Don't you think?

Ed George
04-06-2016, 07:42 AM
The harvest fishery for region 6 is for fish that are in a "routine management" zone which means that there are no conservation concerns. These systems are at or over capacity and the province prefers to allocate more fish to non-residents through rod days for angling guides as opposed to letting a resident bonk one and actually eat it. These streams in region 6 are not the Thompson and do not see the pressure of lower mainland systems.

Hatcheries have a place in stock recovery. The Cheakamus is a prime example, a rail car of caustic soda went off the tracks and dumped into the river killing everything below the accident site. CN was extremely good at fixing the damage, if it was going to repair or restore what was done they paid without complaint. The hatchery was used to rear steelhead and released back into the system, the run that previously showed float counts of around 300 was showing 1700+ after remediation.

The SFAB has been pulled into the steelhead issue due to the Thompson and Chilko rivers, runs are the lowest in history with counts of 440 for the Thompson and 140 for the Chilko. The SFAB is a federal advisory program that has been working for more than 50 years but being federal has no real say as steelhead are provincial jurisdiction. How low do the numbers have to be before "we" say enough and intervene to save what is left? We can still get "pure brood stock" for the systems involved. Do you believe the habitat is going to repair itself in time to save the stocks or should we help?

BgBlkDg
04-06-2016, 07:43 AM
I did that in the mid-80s, aged late 30s and with a lot of serious bushtime and college study in biology, had years of experience with salmonids and reading scientific literature concerning them.

I was asked to be on the then Lower Mainland executive and accepted, but, sorry, the "blinkers" on most of the lopngterm members were SO limiting and I then resigned to work for the CCG. I did not attempt to return as I felt that ONLY certain opinions were acceptable and I still feel that is the case.

Eastbranch
04-06-2016, 08:14 AM
The harvest fishery for region 6 is for fish that are in a "routine management" zone which means that there are no conservation concerns. These systems are at or over capacity and the province prefers to allocate more fish to non-residents through rod days for angling guides as opposed to letting a resident bonk one and actually eat it. These streams in region 6 are not the Thompson and do not see the pressure of lower mainland systems.
This post illustrates a complete lack of knowledge about skeena region steelhead.

The BCWF in it's history has never come to the table with a biologically sound fish management recommendation. So nothing has changed.

Ed George
04-06-2016, 11:24 AM
This post illustrates a complete lack of knowledge about skeena region steelhead.

The BCWF in it's history has never come to the table with a biologically sound fish management recommendation. So nothing has changed.

I suggest you contact Mike O'neil, the BCWF Region 6 president as he and the previous 2 past presidents can give you the numbers. The proposal for a harvest fishery is for only 1 or 2 fish and require harvest data to be provide, "citizen science" as FLNRO will not do it themselves.

steveo
04-06-2016, 11:58 AM
This post illustrates a complete lack of knowledge about skeena region steelhead.

The BCWF in it's history has never come to the table with a biologically sound fish management recommendation. So nothing has changed.
Just out of curiosity, what knowledge is lacking in regards to the Skeena steelhead.

SPEYMAN
04-06-2016, 02:24 PM
Would that be the Mike O'neil that manages the hatchery that would be paid to run the program. No conflict of interest here.

lange1212
04-06-2016, 05:34 PM
This post illustrates a complete lack of knowledge about skeena region steelhead.

The BCWF in it's history has never come to the table with a biologically sound fish management recommendation. So nothing has changed.

I have yet to see any sound indiscriminate scientific data provided by you and the minority here that supports your mind set, just a whole lot of attacks and false nefarious claims towards others that have a differing opinion.

You make a statement with no defensible scientific data to substantiate and support your argument. So step out from behind the curtain and share your knowledge based on scientific data and best available science, not bogus anecdotal claims that are non-defensible.

So far all this thread has shown is a minority of steelhead elitist and a mindset of not wanting to share the sand box, but want to keep it all to themselves, regardless of how much sand there's to play on. The SSOBC should remember that when the criticize there's always 3 fingers pointing back, likely why its membership remains stagnant at about 300 since 1970.

my opinion

Fisher-Dude
04-06-2016, 10:02 PM
This post illustrates a complete lack of knowledge about skeena region steelhead.

The BCWF in it's history has never come to the table with a biologically sound fish management recommendation. So nothing has changed.

How many profiles have you got now, Kris/PGK/PGKris/Tinney/Arctic Red?

fowl language
04-07-2016, 07:57 AM
can someone explain to me the disadvantages of a hatchery. do they not take the eggs from the local streams? I have witnessed the hatchery capability in Alaska and was extremely impressed with the return numbers.

souwester
04-07-2016, 08:33 AM
Speyman I have fished steelhead all over western north America,my life at one time revolved around it.
For the most part I would be against hatcheries for steelhead however as Far as BCWF is concerned did u ever meet Bill Otway ?
I attended many meetings back in the 90s regarding how to restore steelhead stocks in BC,I thought he had some pretty progressive ideas and was trying to figure out a way to keep genetic diversity alive but maintain a quality fishing opportunity at the same time.
Lots of good has been done by the BCWF in regards to steelhead. Cant really argue the subject to be honest.

SPEYMAN
04-07-2016, 11:36 AM
Let's not confuse the issues. There may have been beneficial issues supported by the BCWF. That does not make them the most knowledgeable group to decide if a kill fishery should be implemented on any system or if a hatchery program is required. There are fishery managers that made decisions long ago that have caused our present state of affairs.

The BCWF has been a proponent of a kill fishery for some time. The Vedder River and Stamp River have become a put and take fishery. Very costly and poor returns. Why are the U.S. states going away from hatchery programs?

I have been involved in these issues since early 70s. Have observed what hatcheries have done to our fishery. Rape and pillage by commercial entities has been the downfall.

Lets just not kill any fish for a 5 year period until we know what the runs actually exist and how many. I remember being told by a DFO official that "we now know exactly how many fish are returning to every river, just as soon as they get there".

steveo
04-07-2016, 12:00 PM
I grew up on the Stamp and thought it was a good steelhead fishery, even world renowned. I have noticed the steelhead numbers sliding but I would assume that is because less and less funding for the hatchery. Could you explain further, Speyman, how the hatcheries are less bang for the buck.

lange1212
04-07-2016, 01:20 PM
can someone explain to me the disadvantages of a hatchery. do they not take the eggs from the local streams? I have witnessed the hatchery capability in Alaska and was extremely impressed with the return numbers.

Hi Fowl, below are 3 paragraphs cut and pasted from an in depth scientific 50 page study conducted on the Kitimat River regarding hatchery augmentation and steelhead DNA.

Some would like people to think that hatchery augmentation will devastate a natural populations DNA structure. The reality in my eyes is that augmentation programs operated on a basis of science and designed to aid wild populations have been successful in many cases. I'm not saying that horror stories don't exist out there, nor am I saying that hatchery programs should replace habitat restoration initiatives. What I am saying is the science on hatchery augmentation has come a long way over the past 3 decades and firmly believe that it has great value and benefit to conservation, sustainability, and opportunity. It's not evil as some would like us to believe.


In addition I've reviewed other studies with hatchery augmentation where populations have dwindled. It is important to understand that hatcheries are most often put on systems where habitat has been negatively impacted by commercial, industrial, resource extraction, urbanization....
The question then becomes in such circumstances is a dwindling stock related to hatchery augmentation, or is it related to degraded spawning and rearing habitats hindering natural reproduction?

Food for thought.


Allelic variation at 10 microsatellite loci was assayed in steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
scale samples (n=333) collected in various years 1976-2003, from the lower mainstem Kitimat
River, British Columbia. The objective was to investigate the genetic structure of natural
steelhead populations in the Kitimat River before hatchery stocking started in 1984 (baseline
samples 1976-1977, 1983-1984, n=145), and to assess potential genetic impact of in-river
interbreeding of returning cultured adult fish with wild spawners over almost 20 years of large scale hatchery operation (1987-2003, n=188).

We conclude that for the current
management regime there is little indication that hatchery practices of lower mainstem Kitimat
River steelhead have until now had major genetic effects through genetic drift,

In conclusion, the results from the Kitimat River indicate little genetic differentiation among the
studied year classes, or between pre and post hatchery populations. Likewise, pairwise testing did not indicate any significant trends or changes. Compared to other relevant studies, there is little indication to date that hatchery stocking of steelhead trout in the Kitimat River until now has had any substantial genetic effects, at least as assayed using microsatellite DNA variation. The presence of a substantial number of wild fish and multiple year classes in the mixed spawning population tend to buffer potential negative effects.

Eastbranch
04-07-2016, 01:27 PM
The last time this discussion came up everyone ignored all the data and came to their own conclusions based on rhetoric and biased self observation. This is the policy:
http://www.frafs.ca/sites/default/files2/Draft%20Provincial%20Framework%20for%20Steelhead%2 0Management%20in%20BC%20--January%202015.pdf

Need a refresher course?
http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?113123-Proposed-regulation-changes-in-Region-6-(Copper-Yakoun-Kitsumkalum-Zymacord)&p=1587938#post1587938
Does this look like a catch trend that indicates the remote possibility of opening a harvest fishery?


3. Manage wild steelhead as catch-and-release fisheries

Societal and economic benefits generally increase with the abundance of adult steelhead returns, which anglers detect through changes in personal catch success or by learning of the success of others. In theory, abundance should be near maximum levels in unfished populations which are close to what would be achieved in a catch-and-release fishery (assuming post-release mortality rates remain low). The demand response to a real or apparent increase in abundance is to attract lapsed and new anglers into the fishery. For existing anglers, the response to increased abundance should take the form of improved catch success, which may also result in an increase in total hours fished per day or more days fished per season and a general increase in the overall level of angler satisfaction. Catch and release improves the likelihood of encountering fish, and therefore increases the socio-economic benefits both in the current season and the season when the offspring of spawners return. As many returning adults pass through more than one sport fishery, they become proportionally more valuable when they are able to complete their life cycle. Catch and release can provide a low-risk alternative to closures where abundance levels are low.

In contrast to catch-and-release fisheries, harvest fisheries result in abundance decreasing to levels below the unfished equilibrium, roughly in proportion to the severity of the harvest. Consequently, not only do harvest fisheries reduce the number of fish available for the angler in any given return year but harvesting also reduces returns for subsequent years as well. Furthermore, if stocks are recovering after periods of low returns, the harvesting of spawners can delay the return of the population to acceptable levels by several years (sometimes decades). These pressures are particularly apparent where interception fisheries already create a significant harvest that managers must address. The fact that many winter-run stocks have not increased in number after more than two decades of ‘no harvest’ in some cases clearly indicates that ocean and stock productivity is very low and in some cases below replacement. Northern summer stocks may not be subject to the same survival factors and winter runs, but persistent by-catch pressure undoubtedly absorbs some of the ‘surplus’ that might or might not exist prior to marine fisheries.

Under conditions where steelhead are highly vulnerable to capture (i.e. the majority of the stock is accessible to anglers) the reported catch can even exceed estimated returns. This observation underscores the ongoing intensity of data collection and enforcement required to sustain an annual harvest in an open access fishery for wild fish. The potential for excessive harvest and possible extirpation is elevated where stock assessment estimates are imprecise, stocks are unproductive (or only moderately so) or environmental conditions are uncertain. Many of the stocks currently considered relatively ‘healthy’ based on catch success and other indices are unproductive northern stocks (i.e. those where ‘surplus’ might be identified would be limited at best). The abrupt, large and persistent shifts we have seen in steelhead productivity in some populations recently only re-enforce the need for a precautionary approach in management policies to ensure we are not placing populations at higher levels of risk, or impacting their ability to provide societal benefits in the future.

Widespread freshwater harvesting opportunities for other species exist throughout the province and include wild and hatchery trout species (including those stocked in >1000 lakes) and several species of salmon and stocked steelhead in a number of rivers that are available to anglers at the same time as wild steelhead. Since wild steelhead provide exceptional quality of angling experience, they are managed with the intention of maximizing the number of such freshwater opportunities. Having said this, hatchery programs for steelhead have been maintained for a limited number of water bodies to provide the opportunity to harvest a steelhead from a relatively abundant, hatchery-augmented population. These programs generally provide experiences that are different from those associated with wild populations and purposefully target a different demographic.

For all the reasons above, the Province will continue to administer catch-and-release fisheries for wild steelhead as described in the Steelhead Stream Classification Policy (Appendix V). Wild stocks considered to be in ‘routine management’ have been managed as catch and release for over a decade and will continued to be administered as such unless new information is available to support a change. Diversity of opportunity is considered within the broader context of all freshwater fishing opportunities in the province. This may preclude harvest opportunities for certain species and/or in certain geographic regions to ensure the long-term maintenance of the wild fish resource take precedence over the provision of other socio-economic benefits.


Research in BC and elsewhere has shown that hatchery supplementation does not rebuild wild stocks, but it can be used to support a fishery at considerable financial cost. Research has also shown that hatchery stocking can reduce the productivity of wild steelhead populations, with the negative impacts increasing with the proportion of the total population that is of hatchery origin. Thus, hatchery augmentation should only be used in special circumstances where impacts on wild populations can be avoided and the expected societal benefits exceed the costs of the program.

As a direct reply to the OP, I would also like to hear the thoughts of the actual BCWF board or president, and whether or not they are interested in controlling the motions that their regional members make at SFAB meetings when it directly contradicts all the sound management information available for the species. I equate this madness with a BCWF member in 7B making a recommendation to open a harvest on stone's sheep ewes. Spectacularly ignorant.

303savage
04-07-2016, 02:36 PM
Does the ministry of fisheries have any idea how many salmon and steelhead the the natives take. It would be hard to regulate a fishery with out all the numbers.

lange1212
04-07-2016, 03:31 PM
Eastbranch,

You've posted parts of the Provincial Steelhead Policy. When I read between the lines this mirrors the intent of the Wildlife Allocation Policy. That intent being prioritizing economics over everything else and providing commercial interest greater exclusivity. In light of the many placebos this policy outlines such as bait bans, non retention...hidden under lessening the impact on steelhead. Did you know that the Province handed out hundreds of steelhead rod days to angling guides in the Skeena?

So it would appear that the many sustainable steelhead angling values and opportunities that generation of residents have enjoyed are axed under the guise of conservation. However no limits are place on non-resident steelhead anglers, in fact the province promotes and increase their access, opportunity, and associated impact. Not under the label of conservation but under economics and catering to angling guide businesses trumping it.

I often hear the excuse (non-defensible in many cases) that the wild steelhead populations can't sustain a regulated and limited harvest, and that the science does not exist to support it (I disagree believing the science does exist). That said, those opposing any harvest opportunity on steelhead how do they justify the kill directly associated with catch and release fisheries (regardless of method) likely in the hundreds annually. Seems very bias and hypocritical to me, a resident can't harvest a steelhead for the frying pan, but anglers from all over the world can come and release them belly up in C&R fishery. A dead fish is a dead fish! If a fishery can't sustain mortality then whether released belly up or released in ones frying pan should not matter. I think everyone can see the bias and hypocrisy of the current Provincial Management regime.

Eastbranch
04-07-2016, 04:50 PM
There is a massive difference between a management plan and an allocation policy. It's clear you have no ability to grasp the concept of sustainability.

lange1212
04-07-2016, 05:20 PM
There is a massive difference between a management plan and an allocation policy. It's clear you have no ability to grasp the concept of sustainability.

Management plans and allocation policies are often linked. I've worked on numerous management and use plans where harvest and the allocation thereof is a function and or reference directly to it. Do some aspects of the two differ, yes. But they go hand in hand.

Your attempt to insult me and question my ability to grasp a concept, rather than engage in a thought out and educated debate of differing positions and views shouts of your intellectual standing or lack thereof.

Caribou_lou
04-07-2016, 09:54 PM
The problem is that the old time, antiquated thinking of the BCWF is what stops many from joining. We must all be conservationists, environmentalists, protectors of our natural resources as well as being responsible hunters and fishers.

I am young but I guess I still fall into the antiquated thinking portion you speak of. What's wrong with killing a Steelhead again? Absolutely nothing. Just a fish. I may actually get to use that steelhead tag I'm forced to buy if they raise Bulkley hatchery fish.

Didn't the Bulkley river have a hatchery that released steelhead? Many years ago? So you might want to applaud the hatchery for the steelhead that are there today. Don't ya think?!

GoatGuy
04-08-2016, 11:01 AM
The question I've always had about steelhead is the pincushion effect on fitness.

Anyone?

steveo
04-08-2016, 11:43 AM
The question I've always had about steelhead is the pincushion effect on fitness.

Anyone?
Sorry GoatGuy, you have to elaborate and dumb it down for me.

GoatGuy
04-08-2016, 11:53 AM
Sorry GoatGuy, you have to elaborate and dumb it down for me.

What are the effects on which are being caught sometimes multiple times.

steveo
04-08-2016, 12:01 PM
Ah, never heard that one before. I would say the playing of the fish and handling on release is the critical part of it all but how do you control that.

Gateholio
04-08-2016, 12:22 PM
Lets just not kill any fish for a 5 year period until we know what the runs actually exist and how many."

Only way to ensure there are no angling deaths of the fish is to prohibit ALL fishing.

Pincushion effect indeed.

Caribou_lou
04-08-2016, 12:22 PM
What are the effects on which are being caught sometimes multiple times.

We all know nothing positive will come out of that study if it was even done. So therefor that info would never be released.

There can't possibly be any negative effects resulting from catch and release! Mortality rate.... What's that?

The way I look at it. These fish go to the ocean, grow and store fat reserves to make the hundreds of kilometres journey to there spawning grounds. They don't put on an extra 30% fat to compensate for the 2 or 3 times they will be caught and harassed along the way.

Caribou_lou
04-08-2016, 12:24 PM
There have been study's performed on catch and release chinook. And if I remember right. Results were not good.

steveo
04-08-2016, 12:38 PM
There have been study's performed on catch and release chinook. And if I remember right. Results were not good.
What factors in a study such as chinook catch and release would be looked at and how would the study be done to compare with a steelhead fishery?

Whonnock Boy
04-08-2016, 12:50 PM
One concern I have is the poaching aspect, if the retention is implemented. Not saying it doesn't happen now, but this opens the door for poachers to walk off the beach with fish in hand without raising any concerns whatsoever. How many won't be tagged?

steveo
04-08-2016, 12:58 PM
One concern I have is the poaching aspect, if the retention is implemented. Not saying it doesn't happen now, but this opens the door for poachers to walk off the beach with fish in hand without raising any concerns whatsoever. How many won't be tagged?
Why is that an issue compared to no retention?

Whonnock Boy
04-08-2016, 01:20 PM
Why is that an issue compared to no retention?

When fishing the Bulkey now, if one was to see another fisherman retaining a fish, red flags would go off. With a retention limit implemented, anyone can go down to their favorite fishing hole, bonk a fish without tagging, and head home. With the amount of enforcement out there, I am sure this will happen far too often. I also wonder with the amount of travelers that visit the systems listed here, and if even half of them retain one fish, would that not put a huge strain on the numbers? I don't know as I have not reviewed any literature opposing or supporting a retention. These are just some concerns off the top of my head.

steveo
04-08-2016, 01:42 PM
When fishing the Bulkey now, if one was to see another fisherman retaining a fish, red flags would go off. With a retention limit implemented, anyone can go down to their favorite fishing hole, bonk a fish without tagging, and head home. With the amount of enforcement out there, I am sure this will happen far too often. I also wonder with the amount of travelers that visit the systems listed here, and if even half of them retain one fish, would that not put a huge strain on the numbers? I don't know as I have not reviewed any literature opposing or supporting a retention. These are just some concerns off the top of my head.Good point, but if there is no other fisherman around what is stopping any one now from bonking a fish. Policing the fishery is key and other users do help but C.O presence is more of a persuasion.

steveo
04-08-2016, 01:59 PM
I would assume that powers at hand would take into consideration that some extra fish would be taken in a retention fishery and add this to any projected harvest limits.

GoatGuy
04-08-2016, 04:51 PM
Ah, never heard that one before. I would say the playing of the fish and handling on release is the critical part of it all but how do you control that.
On the ungulate side we know having wolves on the landscape result in increased mortality (all ages), lower weaning weights, lower fitness, and lower pregnancy weights.

Steelhead caught in river face numerous stressors. They are by and large living off reserves, some longer than others, and being caught multiple times seem like it would have cumulative impact on fitness and likely fecundity.


has anyone looked at it?

.

steveo
04-08-2016, 07:20 PM
Many factors contribute to the fitness levels of a steelhead other than catch and release from fisherman. How important is a catch and release episode to a fish and how much value can be assigned to it?

Caribou_lou
04-08-2016, 08:24 PM
What factors other than catch and release do we have control over?

The steelhead numbers in the skeena watershed can support a harvest fishery without a hatchery. Open it up to one a year line it use to be. Just take a peek at the test fishery numbers for steelhead. There's your proof.

steveo
04-08-2016, 09:15 PM
What factors other than catch and release do we have control over?

The steelhead numbers in the skeena watershed can support a harvest fishery without a hatchery. Open it up to one a year line it use to be. Just take a peek at the test fishery numbers for steelhead. There's your proof.How does having control over something make it less or more important on a level of relevancy? I was asking how important catch and release is to the fish and what value it shares compared to all other factors. I have not heard much about the negative of catch and release on the steelhead fisheries around here. You are saying the Skeena would have one fish per annual license for steelhead?

Beachcomber
04-08-2016, 09:26 PM
Steelhead caught in river face numerous stressors. They are by and large living off reserves, some longer than others, and being caught multiple times seem like it would have cumulative impact on fitness and likely fecundity.

has anyone looked at it?
.

I've always been interested in this subject but have lost touch with it over the last few years. It makes sense to assume that the more a fish is caught the higher its chances of mortality are from being hooked, handled etc. The method it was caught by also seems to be a factor in some estimations which leads us to the bait vs fly argument influence on C&R mortality rates (the focus of this paper: http://nativefishsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Hooking-Mortality-Steelhead-2001.pdf) It is dated (2001) but does discuss C&R and points to studies undertaken on Atlantic salmon, the results of which may be relevant for steelhead. Would be interested if there is something more current out there.

"The influence of multiple captures of individual steelhead is another element of many British Columbia steelhead fisheries that remains to be evaluated. Catch and tag recovery data from a large number and range of Ministry programs indicate that in many heavily fished streams steelhead are commonly caught two or more times. It is reasonable to conclude the frequency of these occurrences has increased steadily over the past two decades. The emerging and unanswered questions are whether or not there are cumulative effects associated with multiple captures and how significant these are from a population perspective? It is clear from the available CPUE (and mortality rate) data presented above, however, that any risk of sub-lethal effects associated with multiple captures would be skewed markedly toward gear types and procedures that increased an individual fish’s frequency of exposure to those circumstances."

GoatGuy
04-08-2016, 09:35 PM
Many factors contribute to the fitness levels of a steelhead other than catch and release from fisherman. How important is a catch and release episode to a fish and how much value can be assigned to it?

That is basically the question. Also, what do multiple C&R episodes mean.

Steelhead have a distinct life history, spending a relatively long time in river (depending on the run) to spawn, and theoretically should also live to return.

We know that stressors on many other forms of 'wildlife' can have significant short and long-term effects on populations and individuals, even if those stressors are not attributed to mortality events.

The steelhead discussion is based on whether a steelhead is consumed by a person..... or not. It is not about the broader discussion surrounding long-term conservation and the impacts of angling (as a whole) on steelhead. Hopefully the answers are out there somewhere - it seems like that is a missing link in the discussion.

GoatGuy
04-08-2016, 09:41 PM
I've always been interested in this subject but have lost touch with it over the last few years. It makes sense to assume that the more a fish is caught the higher its chances of mortality are from being hooked, handled etc. The method it was caught by also seems to be a factor in some estimations which leads us to the bait vs fly argument influence on C&R mortality rates (the focus of this paper: http://nativefishsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Hooking-Mortality-Steelhead-2001.pdf) It is dated (2001) but does discuss C&R and points to studies undertaken on Atlantic salmon, the results of which may be relevant for steelhead. Would be interested if there is something more current out there.

"The influence of multiple captures of individual steelhead is another element of many British Columbia steelhead fisheries that remains to be evaluated. Catch and tag recovery data from a large number and range of Ministry programs indicate that in many heavily fished streams steelhead are commonly caught two or more times. It is reasonable to conclude the frequency of these occurrences has increased steadily over the past two decades. The emerging and unanswered questions are whether or not there are cumulative effects associated with multiple captures and how significant these are from a population perspective? It is clear from the available CPUE (and mortality rate) data presented above, however, that any risk of sub-lethal effects associated with multiple captures would be skewed markedly toward gear types and procedures that increased an individual fish’s frequency of exposure to those circumstances."

The gear type conversation is always a great one, but not really of interest in the big picture - it's more about the fish, than the fisherman.

It isn't just about mortality (what everyone focuses on), it's about fitness, egg production, long-term survival...... ie fish that make it back to the ocean. These aren't fish who are making a couple week journey to drop eggs and die.

The focus for fishermen has always been about gear type, but if there is an impact and it's an honest conversation it isn't about the gear it's about the number of fish caught and released, isn't it?

Beachcomber
04-08-2016, 09:42 PM
Many factors contribute to the fitness levels of a steelhead other than catch and release from fisherman. How important is a catch and release episode to a fish and how much value can be assigned to it?

Not a definitive answer to your question - the author does not assign a 'value' to C&R - but this observation does address the efficacy of catch and release as a conservation tool (see link to paper in my prev post).

"Catch and release may have been oversold in that there tends to be a pervasive opinion it can be prosecuted limitlessly with no influence on the status or health of steelhead or sympatric species. With respect to fluvial resident trout populations it was accepted long ago fish are too catchable and prone to hooking mortality to sustain fishing with certain gear types. Resident fish are simply that – stationary inhabitants of the available habitat. Arguably, steelhead in most of British Columbia’s short coastal streams, are effectively resident trout. Their vulnerability is entirely comparable to fluvial resident trout."

Beachcomber
04-08-2016, 10:02 PM
The focus for fishermen has always been about gear type, but if there is an impact and it's an honest conversation it isn't about the gear it's about the number of fish caught and released, isn't it?

I sort of agree with you. But many would argue the number of fish caught and released is influenced by gear type, or more specifically the use of bait. It is also argued that, not only are more fish caught (ie stressed more often) using bait vs other methods, but more of those fish are hooked deep in the esophagus leading to a higher mortality rate on release. So I do think gear type does have a place in an honest conversation about mortality in a C&R fishery.

The article I posted did say the other good questions you raise about the long term, sub-lethal impact of C&R (on fitness, egg production, long-term survival) remain unanswered.

GoatGuy
04-08-2016, 10:27 PM
I sort of agree with you. But many would argue the number of fish caught and released is influenced by gear type, or more specifically the use of bait. It is also argued that, not only are more fish caught (ie stressed more often) using bait vs other methods, but more of those fish are hooked deep in the esophagus leading to a higher mortality rate on release. So I do think gear type does have a place in an honest conversation about mortality in a C&R fishery.

The article I posted did say the other good questions you raise about the long term, sub-lethal impact of C&R (on fitness, egg production, long-term survival) remain unanswered.

No disagreement about bait versus non-bait, but that is about direct mortality.

The next discussion in line is gear versus fly and it doesn't really matter to the fish at that point, it's just about how many times it's caught.

Caribou_lou
04-08-2016, 11:36 PM
How does having control over something make it less or more important on a level of relevancy? I was asking how important catch and release is to the fish and what value it shares compared to all other factors. I have not heard much about the negative of catch and release on the steelhead fisheries around here. You are saying the Skeena would have one fish per annual license for steelhead?

I would say having control over a factor would make it very relevant over factors you don't have control over...

What would be the negative results of a harvest fishery on Steelhead? Less Steelhead? Less Steelhead for what? Catch and release?! I don't care much for catching a fish for a picture. I am a bit old fashioned I guess and enjoy bonking to eat. Believe it or not, I'm not alone. If there are enough fish to have a harvest fishery. Why not? Take these fish off the pedestal and onto my table.

Im not saying it would be one per annual license. I'm saying it wasn't that many years ago you could harvest one steelhead a year on your freshwater licence on the Skeena river. My family and I would go every April and tag a few Steelhead and usually a few springs that time of year. Now we don't even go. I would not be able to release a steelhead I know would die.

Gateholio
04-09-2016, 01:10 AM
"Catch and release fishing is like going deer hunting with a pellet gun, and many hunters shooting the same deer in the lip, over and over."

Valid?

That was a quote to me from an avid fly fisherman (now deceased) that always believed he was doing the right thing by releasing, but eventually wondered if it was better to just go catch a fish and eat it, and leave the rest alone. Wondered if he was being selfish and detrimental to fish by insisting that he catch ALL the fish once, instead of ONE fish, once. He wasn't a mentor or anything, just a guy I knew that was putting things into context I could understand.

Last time I fished the Bulkley was over 12 years ago, and I don't fresh water fish much at all these days, so other than a general conservation standpoint, I don't have a horse in the race. But when we have these conversations, I do wonder about that old fellow that had fished all his life and went through several transformations on his thought process.

BgBlkDg
04-09-2016, 07:56 AM
I have held that opinion for about 20 years now, caught my first trout on a fly in 1952 and my wife loves small trout as food. So, I tend to keep the first couple I catch where the limit allows this and stop fishing for that day. I have seen too many "released" fish die just after the release and prefer to eat any that die at my hands. YMMV, of course.

Red_Mist
04-09-2016, 08:44 AM
I could be wrong but aren't our neighbours to the south moving away from hatcheries in favour of simply promoting wild stock. I have no issue with catch and release that said it depends largely on the angler. Fighting a fish so gently to simply land it with light tackle till its exhausted isn't fair to the fish.

280 77
04-09-2016, 08:59 AM
Catch and release can definitely have an effect on a fishes mortality , however if anglers were educated on how to not overplay a fish and how to properly revive and release a fish the fishes chances of survival increase substantially. A salmon or steelhead should never be dragged up on shore and ideally never leave the water if they are to be released .
a wild fish is definitely superior to a hatchery fish but without the hatcheries many of our runs would be wiped out . The real issues facing salmon and steelhead populations in this great province of ours are being neglected and until they are addressed in an honest fashion the only thing that will save many of theses runs is hatcheries .
The way the commercial fisheries and fish farms are coddled and prioritized is causing serious harm to the salomonid populations .If these issues aren't addressed , hatcheries will be our only alternative.
All of these issues have been faced previously in such countries as Scotland and many of the Nordic countries , who had to learn the hard way . They have made our government aware of their findings and remedies but our government only thinks short term monetary gain .

40incher
04-09-2016, 10:49 AM
The "steelhead issue" ceased to be about biology and conservation decades ago ... it is an issue of social engineering at this point!

Skeena River steelhead number over 100,000 pieces annually ... the harvest when allowed was less than 1% of the landed catch ... C&R mortalities are 6 times that amount on the first wounding and go up from there.

The Bulkley, Morice, Babine, Kispiox, Suskwa and Zymoetz Rivers were all hatchery enhanced for many years in the 1980's and onward ... and the wild stocks benefitted as a result. I can just imagine some heads spiraling off into outer space with that realization.

Taking a few steelhead out of the Skeena has no discernible impact ... but the C&R zealots will do anything to prevent it, as in chastising and bullying the BCWF.

All the detractors will drag in the Indians, the Commercial gillnetters, predators, global warming and even Miley Cyrus to try and stop the killing and eating of a Skeena steelhead ... just because! Bring it on boys ... they smoke up real good and make great crab bait as well.

Just a few facts and comments to speed things up while I'm away for the weekend.

Suck it up buttercups ... steelhead are back in the food chain!!

Caribou_lou
04-09-2016, 05:36 PM
Suck it up buttercups ... steelhead are back in the food chain!!

I like the sound of that!

Cordillera
04-09-2016, 08:46 PM
[
I think if there were 100,000 that got past the commercial fishery at the mouth, we'd have a retention fishery! Latest years are between 25,000 and 40,000 I think. I agree that one fish killed per year may not be discernible when you have good runs. But then sometimes there are bad years, and you don't really know till the year is over.

I am not going to take up steelhead fishing for one fish per year; Sockeye taste better anyway.....

Telkwa Hunter
04-10-2016, 09:19 PM
The "steelhead issue" ceased to be about biology and conservation decades ago ... it is an issue of social engineering at this point!

Skeena River steelhead number over 100,000 pieces annually ... the harvest when allowed was less than 1% of the landed catch ... C&R mortalities are 6 times that amount on the first wounding and go up from there.

The Bulkley, Morice, Babine, Kispiox, Suskwa and Zymoetz Rivers were all hatchery enhanced for many years in the 1980's and onward ... and the wild stocks benefitted as a result. I can just imagine some heads spiraling off into outer space with that realization.

Taking a few steelhead out of the Skeena has no discernible impact ... but the C&R zealots will do anything to prevent it, as in chastising and bullying the BCWF.

All the detractors will drag in the Indians, the Commercial gillnetters, predators, global warming and even Miley Cyrus to try and stop the killing and eating of a Skeena steelhead ... just because! Bring it on boys ... they smoke up real good and make great crab bait as well.

Just a few facts and comments to speed things up while I'm away for the weekend.

Suck it up buttercups ... steelhead are back in the food chain!!


100,000 ?????????
Try 1/4 of that last year.
The BCWF is the laughing stock of fisheries conservation. My membership was burned long ago.
The people pushing for these regs in the north are the lunatic fringe. But they must be taken to task.

Telkwa Hunter
04-10-2016, 09:31 PM
Another post from 2012:

BCWF cannot accept that wild steelhead in BC will never be available for the killing
A representative of the B.C. Wildlife Federation has claimed that the "abundance" of wild steelhead returning to the Skeena in British Columbia should allow sports fishers to kill Skeena steelhead. Rob Brown set them straight in the Terrace Standard. (http://www.terracestandard.com/sports/164953276.html)
Then Bill Bosch, President of the BCWF, came back with this lame response. (http://www.terracestandard.com/opinion/letters/168208366.html)
So then the North Coast Steelhead Alliance eloquently let Mr. Bosch have it......with both barrels. (http://steelheadalliance.com/bcwf-still-out-to-lunch-on-steelhead-kill/)
You have to love the BCWF’s “…primary objective is conservation…” They just cannot accept that wild steelhead in BC will never be available for their killing pleasure. Every year, local BCWF representatives send poisonous letters to the Ministry of Environment demanding steelhead kill fisheries and every year the Ministry dutifully replies that the idea is a non-starter.
While the BCWF is entitled to voice their opinions, on issues like steelhead kill they should just give up…it will never happen….and be assured it certainly won't happen on our watch.
This bit of steelhead trivia from Rob Brown's piece will sober you up. The historic steelhead returns to California’s Eel river alone rivalled that of the entire Skeena drainage.
Now ask yourself why we still allow for the recreational harvest of wild steelhead in the lower 48.

Caribou_lou
04-10-2016, 09:35 PM
Are you familiar with the Test Fishery Telkwa Hunter? Take a look. Some strong numbers there.

Maybe 25000 in the Bulkley alone.

Beachcomber
04-10-2016, 09:44 PM
Are you familiar with the Test Fishery Telkwa Hunter? Take a look. Some strong numbers there.

Maybe 25000 in the Bulkley alone.

Could you or Telkwa Hunter provide a link to the numbers you are citing?

Whonnock Boy
04-10-2016, 09:53 PM
Here are some numbers.

http://skeenasalmonprogram.ca/libraryfiles/lib_275.pdf


Could you or Telkwa Hunter provide a link to the numbers you are citing?

Caribou_lou
04-10-2016, 10:07 PM
Another post from 2012:

BCWF cannot accept that wild steelhead in BC will never be available for the killing


A representative of the B.C. Wildlife Federation has claimed that the "abundance" of wild steelhead returning to the Skeena in British Columbia should allow sports fishers to kill Skeena steelhead. Rob Brown set them straight in the Terrace Standard. (http://www.terracestandard.com/sports/164953276.html)
Then Bill Bosch, President of the BCWF, came back with this lame response. (http://www.terracestandard.com/opinion/letters/168208366.html)
So then the North Coast Steelhead Alliance eloquently let Mr. Bosch have it......with both barrels. (http://steelheadalliance.com/bcwf-still-out-to-lunch-on-steelhead-kill/)
You have to love the BCWF’s “…primary objective is conservation…” They just cannot accept that wild steelhead in BC will never be available for their killing pleasure. Every year, local BCWF representatives send poisonous letters to the Ministry of Environment demanding steelhead kill fisheries and every year the Ministry dutifully replies that the idea is a non-starter.
While the BCWF is entitled to voice their opinions, on issues like steelhead kill they should just give up…it will never happen….and be assured it certainly won't happen on our watch.
This bit of steelhead trivia from Rob Brown's piece will sober you up. The historic steelhead returns to California’s Eel river alone rivalled that of the entire Skeena drainage.
Now ask yourself why we still allow for the recreational harvest of wild steelhead in the lower 48.





The only letter worth reading is the letter Bill Bosch wrote. Do a little research on North Coast Steelhead Alliance and all you read is doom and gloom. Bitching about Commercial opening like a broken record. Trying to down play the Steelhead runs year after year. But that doesn't stop them from going out and harassing them.

Caribou_lou
04-11-2016, 08:39 AM
Here are some numbers.

http://skeenasalmonprogram.ca/libraryfiles/lib_275.pdf

Funny how some people turn quiet when some real numbers get put up.

lange1212
04-11-2016, 09:03 AM
Here are some numbers.

http://skeenasalmonprogram.ca/libraryfiles/lib_275.pdf

Whoknnock,

I see you gain to seek the facts and let the science lead your assessment and opinion of steelhead stocks in the Skeena. Good on you for not allowing your self to be socially engineered by the SSOBC elitists and angling guides who's only drive is to restrict everyone else but themselves. The science you provided shows well over 21,000 steelhead in the Bulkley/Morice alone. That does not include the Skeena main stem, Kalum, Copper, Sustut, Suskwa, Damdachax, Bell Irving........

Thank you for posting the link, as I said before the science supports healthy steelhead stocks in the Skeena Region. The only people arguing that are those trying to hinder resident opportunity for no other reason than not wanting to share and to drive their greater exclusivity agenda for the "special few".

I will dig into my files and see if I can find the Sustut "science" this shows steelhead at and even exceeding capacity which is well above biological requirements for that system. The Sustut is a small northern tributary of the Skeena representing about 2% of the Skeena run.

Also the Nisga'a have compiled some great science as well on the Nass. 2015 data:

RUN SIZE AND ESCAPEMENT ESTIMATES FOR NASS SALMON & SUMMER‐RUN STEELHEAD
In‐season estimates of run size to Gitwinksihlkw fishwheels for adult Nass salmon and summer‐run steelhead
are shown below for 2015. The in‐season run size estimates were above average for Nass Sockeye, Chinook, about average for summer‐run steelhead, and below average for Coho when compared to mean returns from 1994 to 2014. Run size targets to GW were reached for Sockeye, Chinook, and summer‐run steelhead based on in‐season data. Note that summer‐run steelhead estimates began on 1 July. (my emphasis added).

RUN SIZE AND ESCAPEMENT ESTIMATES FOR NASS SALMON & SUMMER‐RUN STEELHEAD
In season run size estimate to date 10,029
Historical mean avg. run size GW for (94-14) 10,720
Run size target 2015 (min. for steelhead) 4,200

lange1212
04-11-2016, 09:20 AM
Telkwa Hunter,

A number of years back a regional R&G Club proposed to ban the use of helicopters "for all steelhead anglers in the Skeena" in an effort to maintain and protect spawning grounds in remote areas. Note that the SSOBC represented by Rob Brown opposed this regulatory change. At the time he was also a fly fishing guide who catered to clients, often using a helicopter.

Remember there's always 3 fingers pointing back!

Ride Red
04-11-2016, 09:27 AM
From a previous thread;

Interesting Read by Louis Cahill;

Steelheaders are generally pretty serious about catch-and-release, but it’s likely that many are mortally wounding fish without ever knowing it.

There are few species of fish as vulnerable as wild steelhead. These fish are beset on all sides by threats both natural and man-made. With their numbers dwindling, it’s safe to say, every steelhead counts. It’s vital that those of us who fish for them practice the best catch-and-release practices.
However, common landing practices can kill fish without the angler ever knowing. A team of biologists studying steelhead in British Columbia discovered this problem, quite by accident. These scientists were tagging steelhead with GPS trackers. They determined that the least intrusive way to capture the fish was, well, the same way we do it. With a fly rod. They landed the fish, tagged them with the GPS device and released them. When they went to their computer to track the fish’s progress they discovered something alarming.
Within two hours many of the fish they had tagged, and released in good health, were dead. They collected the fish and performed autopsies to determine what had gone wrong. In every case the cause of death was head trauma. It turns out that ‘steelhead’ is a misnomer. The fish’s head is, in fact, its most vulnerable spot.
When landing the fish the researchers had played them into shallow water where they would be easy to tail. As the fish came into the shallows they were on longer, fully submerged. Without the resistance of the water surrounding them, their powerful thrashing was able to generate momentum that is not possible underwater. The flopping fish simply hit their heads on a rock.
The fish appeared fine when released, but their injured brains began to swell and soon they were dead. It makes perfect sense if you think about it. Fish have evolved in an environment where hitting their head on anything with enough force to cause damage is almost impossible. Their brains lack the natural protection enjoyed by terrestrial species.
Luckily, this unfortunate outcome is easily avoided. The angler has a couple of good options. Landing fish by hand in knee deep water is a little tougher but much safer for the fish. You can grab the leader to control the fish long enough to tail it. After a fish or two it will feel very natural. When possible, it’s best to use a good catch-and-release net. This is safest for the fish and easiest for the angler. A net helps you seal the deal while the fish is still fresh and requires little reviving.
Always control your fish once he’s landed. Keep his gills wet and support his head in case he makes a sudden attempt to escape. Keeping him, dorsal fin up, will keep his range of motion side-to-side, making it harder for him to injure himself. When possible keep him in deeper water. Never beach a fish when landing him and never lay him on the bank for a photo. It’s just not worth it.
Wild steelhead are a precious resource. Those of us who come to the river looking for them must lead by example and do our best to to be good stewards of these remarkable fish. Their future is, literally in our hands.

lange1212
04-11-2016, 10:31 AM
Here's additional steelhead science in italics below that does not support the doom and gloom touted by some.

I've noted a minority of posts here criticizing the BCWF for their stance on wild steelhead retention, that stance has only been supported where steelhead fall within a routine management zone (not of conservation concern), defensible by best available science, and where it's sustainable. There's absolutely nothing evil or wrong with that!

As for attacks by some towards the BCWF and its members; our local R&G spent the weekend planting a 1000 coniferous trees along a salmon, trout and steelhead stream in an effort to restore damage done to the riparian area from resource extraction and urbanization degrading spawning and rearing habitat. For those that have criticized the BCWF and its membership; What did you do to help our revered fishery this weekend? Punching keys on your keyboard doesn't count.

It is understood that on VI and lower mainland some steelhead stocks are of concern and fully support conservation efforts, habitat restoration, recovery plans.... where needed to return steelhead to routine management zone status. That said BC is larger than many countries and the status of steelhead varies from zone to zone, just like our wildlife.


British Columbia
Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Branch
Skeena Region
Skeena Fisheries Report SK 160
October 2011
1Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Branch – Skeena Region. Smithers, BC.

ii Executive Summary
From August 1 to September 30, 2010, a floating PVC fish fence was in operation on the upper Sustut River. This fence is used as an annual indicator of adult steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) abundance. One thousand fifty steelhead were enumerated during fence operation. This is the fourth highest recorded escapement and represents 101% of the estimated adult carrying capacity for the upper Sustut River. (My emphasis added)

The first steelhead migrated through the fence on August 3 and by September 6, 50% of the steelhead enumerated in 2010 had passed the fence (n=525). The last recorded fish travelled past the fence on September 30. The cumulative distribution of steelhead over time shows that from August 1 to September 30, half the steelhead crossing the Sustut fence did so during a seven day period. From September 1 to 7 a total of 531 or 51% of the total index was counted. During fence operation, the highest daily steelhead count was 181 (September 5). Steelhead were counted on 39 days of this 61 day project.

Of the 1,050 steelhead counted, 626 (60%) were female and 424 (40%) were male, resulting in a female to male ratio of 1.48:1. A total of 43 male and 65 female steelhead were measured for nose-fork length. Male lengths ranged from 660 to 935 mm and averaged 793 mm while female lengths ranged from 655 to 945 mm and averaged 746 mm. Male steelhead were found to be significantly larger than female steelhead.

steveo
04-11-2016, 10:53 AM
I know everyone just loves more gear restrictions or regulations but if the landing of fish is as significant as it seems then implement a net regulation where you have to carry a net and use it for landing/releasing fish, seems straight forward.

Rookie Hunter
04-11-2016, 12:10 PM
This is an interesting perspective:
https://www.ted.com/talks/mike_velings_the_case_for_fish_farming?language=en

In short, our consumption of protein is not sustainable as Earth's population grows. The resources required per 1lb of cattle is much more than 1lb of fish, as they float (efficient), don't need to drink water, and require little feed. Apparently ocean fish populations are also in decline. This man's proposes fish farming as a solution.

lange1212
04-11-2016, 12:42 PM
Here's some data from 2015. Remember this represent about 2% of the Skeena steelhead.


Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Resource Management Division Skeena Region, British Columbia
Skeena Fisheries Report SK 171
March 2016
Executive Summary
From August 1 to September 30, 2015, a fish fence was in operation on the upper Sustut River. This fence is used to count migrating summer-run Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and provides annual monitoring information for this species. Nine hundred and forty three Steelhead were counted crossing the fence during this project in 2015. This is the ninth highest recorded escapement over the past twenty-two years, 28% higher than the historical average annual count for this project (n=737). (my emphasis added)
The first Steelhead migrated through the fence on August 6 and by September 10, 50% of the Steelhead had passed the fence. The last recorded fish travelled past the fence on September 30. The cumulative proportional distribution of Steelhead over time indicates that approximately half (52%, n=495) of Steelhead counted crossed the fence in four days, on August 31 (n=156), September 9 (n=93), September 10 (n=83) and September 19 (n=163). Steelhead were counted on 46 days of this 61 day project.

steveo
04-11-2016, 01:03 PM
Just a thought, would it be unreasonable to have a draw system like LEH, this would not only control harvest but show interest level and generate some funding to go back into the fishery.

40incher
04-12-2016, 08:55 PM
100,000 ?????????

Try 1/4 of that last year.
The BCWF is the laughing stock of fisheries conservation. My membership was burned long ago.
The people pushing for these regs in the north are the lunatic fringe. But they must be taken to task.


Hey There Telkwa Bud,

Thanks for torching it up bud ... the less infiltrators the better.

Take a look at Lange's report from 2015 which proves an absolute-minimum of 900-plus steelhead spawners in the Upper Sustut ... individually counted through a fence funded by the HCTF and operated by the MFLNRO steelhead "scientists". The total run would be much higher. Try 1,300 to 1,500 on for size

Since the Upper Sustut is well-documented as representing just 1.3% of Skeena River summer-runs, from their "only" peer-reviewed science, it does not take a rock star to do the math. That would be over 100,000 summer runs in 2015.

But you don't really care about the science do 'ya ... your ilk is just about promoting the imaginary steelhead icon and excluding other anglers so you can feel "special". Old news bud.

As I said earlier ... suck it up buttercup!

Caribou_lou
04-13-2016, 07:36 AM
All I hear is Crickets 40. The ones opposed to the kill fishery don't like responding to actual numbers.

But they must be happy to see these big numbers. More to C&R for now. Heck, I could probably pick up a Spey Rod and floss a steelhead in a river with that many fish!

Telkwa Hunter
04-13-2016, 08:55 PM
Please find, attached, the final update for the season: Skeena Update to October 7th, 2015. This file contains the Tyee Test Fishery generated Skeena River summer steelhead index, to the completion date for the Tyee Test Fishery - September 24th including daily, cumulative and escapement estimate figures, in addition to a summary table showing cumulative index data since 1998, overall and decadal averages, et cetera.
Sustut Weir counts are also included here to the end of the season - October 1st, as is the Moricetown mark-recapture steelhead abundance estimate to end of that project for 2015 - October 1st.
The Tyee Test Fishery generated escapement estimate for Skeena summer run steelhead for 2015 is 27 761. This year is the lowest estimated steelhead escapement of the 9 years when the test fishery has operated to this date (mean: 43 486; range: 27 761 (2015) to 64 767 (1998)) The previous 5 and 10 year averages to this date were 36 078 and 40 543, respectively.
2015 marks the 37th year since the inception of the Tyee Test Fishery, when the estimate indicates that the Pacific Stock Assessment Review Committee vetted Maximum Sustainable Yield abundance value has not been met.

Commercial fishing activity for the 2015 season can be found in the attached: Commercial Openings 2015. In Area 3 (Nass/Skeena approach waters), there were 27 gillnet and 13 seine net openings (days/partial days) directed at Nass River sockeye, with the exception of the two seine openings directed at Nass coho and pink salmon. In Area 4 (Skeena approach waters), there were 2 gillnet openings directed at chinook salmon and 2 gillnet and 2 seine openings directed at Skeena sockeye - August 23rd and 24th. Low sockeye escapement estimates prior to August 17th accounted for the lack of commercial sockeye directed fisheries Area 4; 4 days of relatively high catches at the Tyee Test Fishery allowed for the most recent two gillnet and seine fisheries.

Nine hundred and fifty-nine steelhead passed through the weir this season. The mean steelhead escapement to date is 728 (range 133 (2006) to 1181 (2009)).
Fourteen hundred and sixty-four sockeye, 505 chinook, 214 coho and 31 bull trout were enumerated.

The Moricetown Mark-Recapture summer steelhead population estimate to October 1st is 17 826, slightly greater than last year's estimate to this date - 17 516. Multiple year comparisons are not possible this year because of tagging interruptions due to funding shortfalls and confidence in the estimate decreases with interruptions in tagging effort. The mark-recapture fishery is nearing completion for this year. Thanks to Wet'suwet'en Fisheries for the providing the data and Dean Peard for data analysis.

Please contact me in the event you have questions/comments.


All the best.


Senior Fisheries Biologist
Fish and Wildlife Branch
BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
3726 Alfred Ave.
Bag 5000
Smithers, BC
V0J 2N0

Whonnock Boy
04-13-2016, 09:29 PM
Does anyone have any data on how many of these fish are returning for a second, third, or even fourth time?

Telkwa Hunter
04-15-2016, 11:52 AM
Funny how when the real numbers show up the BCWF Knuckle Draggers go silent.
Your kill fishery or steelhead hatchery will never happen.

hawk-i
04-15-2016, 12:07 PM
The steelhead numbers are high enough on the Skeena river that at times they can be a nuisance for those targeting Chinook.

There is no good reason a BC resident should not be allowed to kill at least 1 steelhead a year from the Skeena watershed.

Telkwa Hunter
04-15-2016, 03:03 PM
The steelhead numbers are high enough on the Skeena river that at times they can be a nuisance for those targeting Chinook.

There is no good reason a BC resident should not be allowed to kill at least 1 steelhead a year from the Skeena watershed.

A bait ban and Chinook release after August 1st will solve that problem for you.

Ltbullken
04-15-2016, 03:09 PM
The problem is that the old time, antiquated thinking of the BCWF is what stops many from joining. We must all be conservationists, environmentalists, protectors of our natural resources as well as being responsible hunters and fishers.

If all some can do is gripe from the sidelines, then maybe that's what they're best at...

Fisher-Dude
04-15-2016, 04:58 PM
If all some can do is gripe from the sidelines, then maybe that's what they're best at...

Truer words were never spoken.

A conservation organization that is member-driven and has many hands pitching in, just isn't some people's cup of tea. That's okay though, because the gripers tend to drag down collaborative efforts with their negativity and self interests, and are better left to find their own way.

40incher
04-15-2016, 09:14 PM
Funny how when the real numbers show up the BCWF Knuckle Draggers go silent.
Your kill fishery or steelhead hatchery will never happen.


Hey there Bud ... Buttercup ... or whatever you like!

It will happen ... has already happened ... and is happening now! Get over it.

Now I know you and the rest of the steelhead freaks will have to hold on to your little pinheads so they don't spin off after that realization ... but listen up ... the truth is about to come to the forefront. Your bureaucratic numbers are spoon-fed crap ... and that will be proven true as well.

Steelhead are just a fish ... end of story! Your divisive little game of icons is done. We're actually slurping up some smoked steelhead with Philly on crackers as I reply to you ... the un-silent one. Can't believe the rest of your tree-swinging troop haven't told you by now to quit digging that hole you're in!

From what I know of the evolutionary process the Knuckle Draggers are a couple of million years advanced from your troop of Swingers.

Bring it on ... Burp!!!

Telkwa Hunter
04-15-2016, 09:43 PM
Hey there Bud ... Buttercup ... or whatever you like!

It will happen ... has already happened ... and is happening now! Get over it.

Now I know you and the rest of the steelhead freaks will have to hold on to your little pinheads so they don't spin off after that realization ... but listen up ... the truth is about to come to the forefront. Your bureaucratic numbers are spoon-fed crap ... and that will be proven true as well.

Steelhead are just a fish ... end of story! Your divisive little game of icons is done. We're actually slurping up some smoked steelhead with Philly on crackers as I reply to you ... the un-silent one. Can't believe the rest of your tree-swinging troop haven't told you by now to quit digging that hole you're in!

From what I know of the evolutionary process the Knuckle Draggers are a couple of million years advanced from your troop of Swingers.

Bring it on ... Burp!!!

Anything intelligent to say about there only being 25% of the total number of Skeena steelhead than you quoted in the Skeena ?
How about this ? "2015 marks the 37th year since the inception of the Tyee Test Fishery, when the estimate indicates that the Pacific Stock Assessment Review Committee vetted Maximum Sustainable Yield abundance value has not been met".
Tell me how you dispute the numbers from Tyee? Morice Town? Sustut?
Any idea what meeting was today ?
Any idea which one is next ?
Sorry "Bud"......The people that make the decisions do so based on facts......It's never going to happen.

Caribou_lou
04-15-2016, 11:01 PM
A bait ban and Chinook release after August 1st will solve that problem for you.

Neither of these suggestions would solve that problem. 10:1 steelhead to chinook, end of July, bar fishing lower Skeena. No bait. Any other genius ideas?

And I strongly oppose any more restrictions protecting Steelhead. We already are unable to fish the Bulkley until June 16 to limit chances of catching a spawned out steelhead. What a joke.

Caribou_lou
04-16-2016, 08:05 AM
Anything intelligent to say about there only being 25% of the total number of Skeena steelhead than you quoted in the Skeena ?

If you actually think the Skeena watershed only holds 25000 steelhead, why would it be considered one of the finest steelhead destinations in the world? Let's be honest, that's not many fish.

two-feet
04-16-2016, 08:59 AM
Born and raised on the bulkley, fished it my whole life. I have seen ups and downs with the various salmon/steelhead populations. I remember when you could bonk them in the bulkley, then the lower skeena, now not at all.

Steelhead are doing well. Bulkley/morice gets between 10,000 and 30,000 fish anually, a prolific run. Thats why its world class.

I would support a single fish per year per angler on the lower skeena again, the numbers could take it and those things taste pretty good. I feel the bulkley should remain non retention because the fish are stuck in rhe upper system, not moving through, and there are TONS of people fishing for them. If all those people killed one or more fish it would be a blood bath.

Pretty hard to talk about steelhead without getting caught up in politics or personal agendas. As it is the fishery seems to be healthy and sustainable, which can not be said about other runs (chinook)....

it sure is a good industry for the region too, lots of people employed...

lange1212
04-16-2016, 10:25 AM
Telkwa,

If wild steelhead were abundant in the Skeena and a limited harvest opportunity was sustainable would you support such an initative? Forget disputing the numbers today just a simple Q and A.

Telkwa Hunter
04-16-2016, 12:48 PM
If you actually think the Skeena watershed only holds 25000 steelhead, why would it be considered one of the finest steelhead destinations in the world? Let's be honest, that's not many fish.

No.....it's not many fish at all given the size of the drainage. Kind of gives you an idea of how poor other rivers are doing from Alaska to California.
The Skeena is the last steelhead fishery like it left on the planet

Fisher-Dude
04-16-2016, 12:55 PM
If the numbers are as poor as Telkwa would have us believe, then all fishing should stop immediately including catch and release, and that would ensure no C&R mortality.

It's about the fish, right? And not about someone's personal, social objectives?

Telkwa Hunter
04-16-2016, 12:55 PM
Telkwa,

If wild steelhead were abundant in the Skeena and a limited harvest opportunity was sustainable would you support such an initative? Forget disputing the numbers today just a simple Q and A.

No......
Just the suggestion or even asking the question shows how out of touch the BCWF is with reality.
I can't wrap my head around how hungry some people are for a fish. Couldn't catch enough of the millions of hatchery sockeye bound for Fulton?

Telkwa Hunter
04-16-2016, 12:58 PM
If the numbers are as poor as Telkwa would have us believe, then all fishing should stop immediately including catch and release, and that would ensure no C&R mortality.

It's about the fish, right? And not about someone's personal, social objectives?


Those numbers are provided from all the enumeration sites in the Skeena drainage. Not something I made up.
Limiting your personal impact is paramount with fisheries like these. I limit myself to using a floating line and fly and after I hook 2 steelhead I stop fishing for the day.
There is going to be a C&R study conducted on the Bulkley this fall that will provide us with more data about how much harm the sports fishery does.

Fisher-Dude
04-16-2016, 01:02 PM
Those numbers are provided from all the enumeration sites in the Skeena drainage. Not something I made up.

Like I said, let's close all fishing so that no C&R mortality occurs.

It's about the fish, right?

Telkwa Hunter
04-16-2016, 01:17 PM
Like I said, let's close all fishing so that no C&R mortality occurs.

It's about the fish, right?

If it was at the point where C&R wasn't sustainable I'd stop fishing in a heartbeat. There are rivers and fish I voluntarily don't fish because I feel their numbers to be too low.
Yes..... "It's all about the fish".

two-feet
04-16-2016, 02:07 PM
a guy that fishes once a year and bonks his fish is doing far less harm than a good fisherman practicing c&r. I have watched plenty of fish that i caught on the fly float away belly up.

I would consider steelhead to be the healthiest run of fish that comes up the bulkley. The fact that you are allowed ten (10!) springs a year and no steelies is crazy.

Telkwa Hunter
04-16-2016, 02:19 PM
a guy that fishes once a year and bonks his fish is doing far less harm than a good fisherman practicing c&r. I have watched plenty of fish that i caught on the fly float away belly up.

I would consider steelhead to be the healthiest run of fish that comes up the bulkley. The fact that you are allowed ten (10!) springs a year and no steelies is crazy.

You're doing something very very wrong if you are releasing multiple fish that are dead....

lange1212
04-16-2016, 03:13 PM
No......
Just the suggestion or even asking the question shows how out of touch the BCWF is with reality.
I can't wrap my head around how hungry some people are for a fish. Couldn't catch enough of the millions of hatchery sockeye bound for Fulton?

Telkwa,

I asked if you'd support a limited wild steelhead retention if stocks where abundant and was sustainable. I also asked to forget disputing the numbers, simply if there was an abundance would you support such an initative.


Your response was no quickly pointing to other species. So regarless of how many steelhead are in the Skeena you'd never support retention. I asked the question to gauge if you were bias or not.

People who support conservation accept limiting impacts to a species or stock through increased regulations... On the flip side they also support lessening regulations and creating sustainable opportunities when a stock recovers or allows. It has to go both way's and determined through sound "indiscriminate" science as a foundation to lead decison makers.

40incher
04-16-2016, 03:22 PM
a guy that fishes once a year and bonks his fish is doing far less harm than a good fisherman practicing c&r. I have watched plenty of fish that i caught on the fly float away belly up.

I would consider steelhead to be the healthiest run of fish that comes up the bulkley. The fact that you are allowed ten (10!) springs a year and no steelies is crazy.

You're right on all counts. Steelhead are well beyond carrying capacity on the Bulkley and Morice Rivers for sure. Three years of public science done by volunteers and headed by the Bulkley Valley Chapter of the Steelhead Society of BC proved over 30,000 spawners above Moricetown Canyon. That should get the boys spinning again!

Adult production at carrying capacity, according to the Province's own science, says less than 28,400. Number of spawners required for maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is barely over 8,000.

It's not about the fish though ... it's about pushing for an elitist fly-only catch a release fishery that wounds thousands of steelhead yearly. The guides pushed for fly only on the Kispiox just last year but got denied. That won't stop 'em though ... gotta keep pushing the agenda!

Local fly boys brag of 150 fish to the beach in a season with no regard for the wounding deaths. But they still say it's "about the fish".

two-feet
04-16-2016, 03:41 PM
You're doing something very very wrong if you are releasing multiple fish that are dead....
if they get hooked in the tounge they die. Its a numbers game

two-feet
04-16-2016, 03:52 PM
You're right on all counts. Steelhead are well beyond carrying capacity on the Bulkley and Morice Rivers for sure. Three years of public science done by volunteers and headed by the Bulkley Valley Chapter of the Steelhead Society of BC proved over 30,000 spawners above Moricetown Canyon. That should get the boys spinning again!

Adult production at carrying capacity, according to the Province's own science, says less than 28,400. Number of spawners required for maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is barely over 8,000.

It's not about the fish though ... it's about pushing for an elitist fly-only catch a release fishery that wounds thousands of steelhead yearly. The guides pushed for fly only on the Kispiox just last year but got denied. That won't stop 'em though ... gotta keep pushing the agenda!

Local fly boys brag of 150 fish to the beach in a season with no regard for the wounding deaths. But they still say it's "about the fish".


The fishery is elitist, competitive and crowded. Why i have not wet my fly line in 2 years. I dont like getting talked down to by americans or italians when i go down to the river in telkwa with my kids and throw a spoon just as my family has for generations.

Telkwa Hunter
04-16-2016, 03:57 PM
Telkwa,

I asked if you'd support a limited wild steelhead retention if stocks where abundant and was sustainable. I also asked to forget disputing the numbers, simply if there was an abundance would you support such an initative.


Your response was no quickly pointing to other species. So regarless of how many steelhead are in the Skeena you'd never support retention. I asked the question to gauge if you were bias or not.

People who support conservation accept limiting impacts to a species or stock through increased regulations... On the flip side they also support lessening regulations and creating sustainable opportunities when a stock recovers or allows. It has to go both way's and determined through sound "indiscriminate" science as a foundation to lead decison makers.

My vote is NO.
Supported by the science. If science dictated otherwise I would review my decision.
Sorry for getting long winded.
I'm obviously a little passionate about the subject.

Telkwa Hunter
04-16-2016, 04:01 PM
if they get hooked in the tounge they die. Its a numbers game

Guess I have been really lucky for 40yrs

Telkwa Hunter
04-16-2016, 04:03 PM
The fishery is elitist, competitive and crowded. Why i have not wet my fly line in 2 years. I dont like getting talked down to by americans or italians when i go down to the river in telkwa with my kids and throw a spoon just as my family has for generations.

That's one reason we fought so hard to get our resident only weekends. Get out and enjoy them.

Telkwa Hunter
04-16-2016, 04:07 PM
Last year we had 1/2 of that 30000......it doesn't add up.
Conservation is not about MSY. .....another fail for the BCWF.
That was a ban on pink worms on the Kispiox submitted by 1 guide.
Lot's of opinions on that old SSBC study....

40incher
04-16-2016, 05:47 PM
Last year we had 1/2 of that 30000......it doesn't add up.
Conservation is not about MSY. .....another fail for the BCWF.
That was a ban on pink worms on the Kispiox submitted by 1 guide.
Lot's of opinions on that old SSBC study....


Wrong on all counts bud ...

The numbers all add up ... MSY is about conservation, you're pushing preservation with a free pass for the fly boys ... it was a fly-only proposal on the Kispiox, by the same guide who's afraid of those terrible pink worms ... the SSBC study is the only real science done on the Bulkley in decades, science is not about opinions.

So ... batting 0% it seems, even giving you 4 strikes. You're out bud!!

Fisher-Dude
04-16-2016, 07:49 PM
I hate elitist fishermen. They destroy the concept of conservation with personal bias, and cause immeasurable grief for the fishery.

We've tried social management for ages with both fish and wildlife. What has it given us? Declining stocks of fish and wildlife.

Maybe it's time we managed with science instead of social concepts. But try telling that to an antler-point-restriction-fly-chucker, who is only concerned with reducing "competition" for his deer or fish bragging rights.

Telkwa Hunter
04-16-2016, 09:32 PM
I know that it's hard for you guys to see the light from the back of the cave. But the facts are plain to see and easy to read. The reality being you will never get your kill fishery and the more that the knuckle draggers push the issue the worse off the BCWF becomes.
Sorry guys....truth hurts.
I'm out.

Caribou_lou
04-16-2016, 09:45 PM
About time your out. Your buddies were smart enough to be out days ago. Ill be sure to message you a pic of the first Steelhead I bonk. Wont be long now. See Ya J

speycaster
04-17-2016, 09:38 AM
I hate people with shoulder cannons that think killing an animal from 400 plus yards is hunting. Most of them are fat asshats that would die from a heart attack if they had to stalk an animal.:wink:

Fisher-Dude
04-17-2016, 09:53 AM
I hate people with shoulder cannons that think killing an animal from 400 plus yards is hunting. Most of them are fat asshats that would die from a heart attack if they had to stalk an animal.:wink:

Is there something about their actions that is detrimental to conservation?

Obviously, you just don't get it.

Caribou_lou
04-17-2016, 02:23 PM
I hate people with shoulder cannons that think killing an animal from 400 plus yards is hunting. Most of them are fat asshats that would die from a heart attack if they had to stalk an animal.:wink:

Here I thought you were smart... I'll be sure to send you a pic also.

40incher
04-19-2016, 01:56 PM
Guess us old Knuckle Draggers won!!

Wait 'til the boys hear the QCI steelhead retention motion passed by 22 votes for to only 2 against ... and one of the two opposing votes was out of order. Good to see truth and common sense still prevail at times.

The truth only hurts those who seek to mislead (40, 2016).

speycaster
04-19-2016, 02:06 PM
What happens at the BCWF usually has no bearing on Steelhead conservation. In the 52 years that I have been around Steelhead fishing I cannot think of a recommendation from the BCWF that trumped conservation issues. The people most listened to were the conservation minded people and not the canning and smoker ones.:D

Telkwa Hunter
04-19-2016, 08:22 PM
Guess us old Knuckle Draggers won!!

Wait 'til the boys hear the QCI steelhead retention motion passed by 22 votes for to only 2 against ... and one of the two opposing votes was out of order. Good to see truth and common sense still prevail at times.

The truth only hurts those who seek to mislead (40, 2016).

No ....... the neanderthals lost to modern man.
Tell me how the feds are going to open a kill fishery on provincially regulated fish ?
It will never happen.

Fisher-Dude
04-19-2016, 08:38 PM
No ....... the neanderthals lost to modern man.
Tell me how the feds are going to open a kill fishery on provincially regulated fish ?
It will never happen.

Thought you said you were out, Aaron?

Looking forward to a slab of smoked steelie some day soon!

lange1212
04-19-2016, 10:16 PM
No ....... the neanderthals lost to modern man.
Tell me how the feds are going to open a kill fishery on provincially regulated fish ?
It will never happen.

DFO has jurisdiction over all fisheries in Canada, that said a Memorandum of Understanding was agreed to providing the Province the "opportunity" to manage steelhead, trout, and char in "conjunction" with DFO.

The MOU does not relinquished DFO or surrender fisheries management to the Province in its entirety. In fact the MOU clearly states that the Province can return, or DFO can reclaim sole jurisdiction and management at any time.

What the province does in regards to steelhead, trout, and char management has to be vetted through the Fed's. In recent times the Province has not been respecting the letter of the MOU, and has made management and policy decisions without DFO involvement. If that continues there may be no Provincial fisheries management in the future and DFO will be the sole decision maker.

As it stands today DFO continues to be the primary funder of steelhead science, enhancement, and management in BC, not the Province. If it were not for HCTF there would be no "Provincial" steelhead science, and that's coming to an end as the HCTF has been abused by Provincial manager applications requesting funding for their core work and is not the intent or what HCTF is to be used for.

By the way all modern man has a % of Neanderthal DNA in them, including you. Not an insult a simple fact of science.

Telkwa Hunter
04-20-2016, 06:46 AM
So you really think that because some people want a kill fishery for wild steelhead that DFO will comply?
What happens if DFO decides that killing steelhead is good for business because that would mean no more restrictions for the commie gill/seine nets ? Unrestricted commercial fisheries at the mouth/approach areas will decimate the steelhead you so desperately need to kill. Oh wait. .....this is where your hatchery idea comes in.......it's been proven many times over that hatcheries do far more harm than good to wild steelhead. It's not a viable option for conservation.
Why isn't the BCWF pushing for the conservation of wild steelhead?
The kill fishery will never happen.

lange1212
04-20-2016, 08:21 AM
Good morning Telkwa I see your at'er early this morning:wink:

I don't know if DFO will implement steelhead retention or not, but what I do expect is an in depth indiscriminate review the existing science and the decision making process that the Province has been using, and truly consider the advice provided by their consultation panel.

You point to an associated mortality on steelhead caused by the commercial fleet that is exclusive to summer run steelhead. That said I then ask why an opposition to a retention opportunity on winter run steelhead where their run timing is outside that of commercial fisheries and therefore by catch is non-existent?

You need to read my post more carefully. Yes I do support "science based augmentation" where stocks are in decline and largely the result of habitat degradation, urbanization.... As was stated in other posts many of the "world class" steelhead systems in BC have benefited from past hatchery augmentation. There sold as "wild systems" today but the reality is many of them benefited from past augmentation. Habitat restoration is the #1 factor in my eyes to ensure sustainable steelhead populations in to the future that benefits all BC'ers. That said I think we can agree that economics, business, commercial and industrial interest trump protecting steelhead habitat.

You seem very passionate about steelhead and appreciate that. My frustration is when there's opposition to science based decision making when it does not serve ones personal ideology or agenda. Make no mistake the Province is catering to economics "commercial guiding and tourism" interests. I find it very hypocritical when a population is within a routine management zone and harvest is sustainable yet the Province will not provide a retention opportunity (regardless of abundance). Yet in the same breath places no limits on non-resident steelhead anglers coming to our region/BC and increases guided rod days by the hundreds which will have an additive mortality associated with it. This being the case why do you remain silent when these issues emerge and will kill and waste hundreds of steelhead released belly up "regardless of method used", but stand so strongly in opposition of those that believe killing and wasting is morally and ethically wrong. Is this not the same as trophy hunting and should it not be placed under the same social scrutiny. No I'm not anti catch and release, just anti catch and release dead.

You're obviously entrench in your mind set and don't see you as open to an indiscriminate review of steelhead management or any sustainable change or increased opportunity that does not reflect your view or ideology of what a fishery should be. My mind set is that we've a public fishery with many users and must be managed sustainably and regulated defensibly to support those users of our common property resource. What we have today is an attitude of restrict everyone else but me or my preferred method, an effort to remove the competition not benefit the fishery. This is not science based nor socially acceptable its simply unjust segregation. Is that how you want BC fisheries managed? Keep in mind it just may be your children, grandchildren, and yourself next unjustly segregated out of an opportunity, access, and generations old heritage.

Telkwa Hunter
04-20-2016, 11:41 AM
This thread showcases on so many levels what is wrong with the BCWF and it's agenda.
Keep on banging your drum as it is morbidly entertaining.

lange1212
04-20-2016, 01:21 PM
This thread showcases on so many levels what is wrong with the BCWF and it's agenda.
Keep on banging your drum as it is morbidly entertaining.

Telkwa,

When a person goes on the attack and uses defamation and insults it's a flashing sign that they can't provide a educated and intellectual argument to support their stance.

Just saying.

Whonnock Boy
04-20-2016, 02:31 PM
Can anyone post up facts documented in literature or reports supporting or opposing both retention, and hatcheries regarding steelhead?

Telkwa Hunter
04-20-2016, 07:23 PM
Telkwa,

When a person goes on the attack and uses defamation and insults it's a flashing sign that they can't provide a educated and intellectual argument to support their stance.

Just saying.

I've given you facts.....but here we go again:

( pay special attention to this part: "2015 marks the 37th year since the inception of the Tyee Test Fishery, when the estimate indicates that the Pacific Stock Assessment Review Committee vetted Maximum Sustainable Yield abundance value has not been met." ....... But the BCWF insists that a kill fishery is sustainable.....

Please find, attached, the final update for the season: Skeena Update to October 7th, 2015. This file contains the Tyee Test Fishery generated Skeena River summer steelhead index, to the completion date for the Tyee Test Fishery - September 24th including daily, cumulative and escapement estimate figures, in addition to a summary table showing cumulative index data since 1998, overall and decadal averages, et cetera.
Sustut Weir counts are also included here to the end of the season - October 1st, as is the Moricetown mark-recapture steelhead abundance estimate to end of that project for 2015 - October 1st.
The Tyee Test Fishery generated escapement estimate for Skeena summer run steelhead for 2015 is 27 761. This year is the lowest estimated steelhead escapement of the 9 years when the test fishery has operated to this date (mean: 43 486; range: 27 761 (2015) to 64 767 (199:cool:) The previous 5 and 10 year averages to this date were 36 078 and 40 543, respectively.

Commercial fishing activity for the 2015 season can be found in the attached: Commercial Openings 2015. In Area 3 (Nass/Skeena approach waters), there were 27 gillnet and 13 seine net openings (days/partial days) directed at Nass River sockeye, with the exception of the two seine openings directed at Nass coho and pink salmon. In Area 4 (Skeena approach waters), there were 2 gillnet openings directed at chinook salmon and 2 gillnet and 2 seine openings directed at Skeena sockeye - August 23rd and 24th. Low sockeye escapement estimates prior to August 17th accounted for the lack of commercial sockeye directed fisheries Area 4; 4 days of relatively high catches at the Tyee Test Fishery allowed for the most recent two gillnet and seine fisheries.

Nine hundred and fifty-nine steelhead passed through the weir this season. The mean steelhead escapement to date is 728 (range 133 (2006) to 1181 (2009)).
Fourteen hundred and sixty-four sockeye, 505 chinook, 214 coho and 31 bull trout were enumerated.

The Moricetown Mark-Recapture summer steelhead population estimate to October 1st is 17 826, slightly greater than last year's estimate to this date - 17 516. Multiple year comparisons are not possible this year because of tagging interruptions due to funding shortfalls and confidence in the estimate decreases with interruptions in tagging effort. The mark-recapture fishery is nearing completion for this year. Thanks to Wet'suwet'en Fisheries for the providing the data and Dean Peard for data analysis.

Please contact me in the event you have questions/comments.


All the best.


Senior Fisheries Biologist
Fish and Wildlife Branch
BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
3726 Alfred Ave.
Bag 5000
Smithers, BC
V0J 2N0

A link to the Tyee test fishery......can't argue with these numbers since 1955: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/northcoast-cotenord/skeenatyee-eng.html

A link about negative impacts of hatcheries: http://wildfishconservancy.org/what-we-do/advocacy/steelhead-hatchery-reform/scientific-evidence-on-adverse-effects-of-steelhead-hatcheries

For anyone wanting more information on the detrimental effects of hatcheries just do a quick google search.

Some information on proper fish handling http://www.keepemwet.org/#home

There you go in a nutshell........lot's of good information from the provincial government, federal government, and a trusted and well respected fisheries conservation group.

What more do you need ?

On the RMZ ( Routine Management Zone ) front.......the Thompson fish up until this year were classified in the same group as well. It's a moniker used to describe fish stocks that are not fluctuating to drastically. It's not an open invitation to press for kill fisheries. Quit trying to push your agenda with that......it's totally ridiculous.

To the guys bragging about poaching steelhead and sending me pictures ....... really ? Doesn't put your beloved BCWF is a good light...does it ?

Sorry about the "Knuckle Draggers" comments. But it is a very popular term that is widely used these days to describe the lunatic fringe that supports these wild steelhead kill fisheries.

40incher
04-20-2016, 09:49 PM
I may have said this before, but, ... the number one thing I like about steelhead freaks is how predictable they are.

If this was about real conservation of steelhead, which it is not, then let's close all the rivers to catch and release until we can "prove" there are enough to sustain any "sport fishing" mortalities!! C'mon now, how can you disagree based on science and all your BS chicken-little rhetoric!

Let's hang up the rods until the science is bulletproof.

But ... of course ... it's never been about conservation has it? It's about the fact you pea-brained elitists can't tolerate even one little kid bonking a steelhead and taking it home to proudly share with his family. Face it ... you are intolerant of any other view than your own.

It's OK to wound steelhead for your self gratification, even on stocks that are "endangered" (like the Thompson), but no one can take one home on stocks that are beyond carrying capacity (like those on the Skeena).

You boys really do drink your own bathwater ... don't ya'??

Time to bail out again bud ... you'll be doing yourself a big favor.

Caribou_lou
04-20-2016, 10:26 PM
To the guys bragging about poaching steelhead and sending me pictures ....... really ? Doesn't put your beloved BCWF is a good light...does it ?


At what point did I mention I was poaching a Steelhead? I will send you a picture when Skeena Retention Steelhead Fishery opens up. Salt in the wound. Run rub rub it in.

Telkwa Hunter
04-21-2016, 08:52 AM
I may have said this before, but, ... the number one thing I like about steelhead freaks is how predictable they are.

If this was about real conservation of steelhead, which it is not, then let's close all the rivers to catch and release until we can "prove" there are enough to sustain any "sport fishing" mortalities!! C'mon now, how can you disagree based on science and all your BS chicken-little rhetoric!

Let's hang up the rods until the science is bulletproof.

But ... of course ... it's never been about conservation has it? It's about the fact you pea-brained elitists can't tolerate even one little kid bonking a steelhead and taking it home to proudly share with his family. Face it ... you are intolerant of any other view than your own.

It's OK to wound steelhead for your self gratification, even on stocks that are "endangered" (like the Thompson), but no one can take one home on stocks that are beyond carrying capacity (like those on the Skeena).

You boys really do drink your own bathwater ... don't ya'??

Time to bail out again bud ... you'll be doing yourself a big favor.

I haven't fished the Thompson in almost 15yrs. due to low returns. IMO it should have been closed years ago, but all we got was a bait ban 20years to late.
The science on the Skeena supports a C&R fishery. There could be some tightening up of the rules though. I'd like to see a catch and release limit of 2 and make it mandatory that fish be released in knee deep water. Do some research on C&R, keepemwet.or is a great source of information on proper techniques and the founders are world renowned biologists. They happen to be doing a study of C&R on the Bulkley this fall.....more science coming your way. When done properly C&R works.....
Reread the post from the Province's head steelhead biologist for Reg.6......we aren't close to carrying capacity for Skeena steelhead. .....
Please refrain from the threats......thanks

lange1212
04-21-2016, 10:11 AM
Can anyone post up facts documented in literature or reports supporting or opposing both retention, and hatcheries regarding steelhead?

Whonnock,

If you note in post 71 and what Telkwa has posted there's some good data there. It also shows "in my opinion" the bias and manipulation of science by the Province.

For example the Sustut fence "physical and accurate" count of steelhead was 959 in 2015. This represents 1.3% of the Skeena summer run, so if we run the math, 959 X 98.7 = 94,653 steelhead for the Skeena summer run. It could be argued that some tributaries are less productive, but also on the flip side some are more productive.

The Sustut is a small tributary of the upper Skeena and the counts are after commercial by-catch interception, FN FSC fisheries, and recreational C&R mortalities.

Now if we look at the data Telkwa posted from Mark you'll note that the Tyee Test Fishery estimate for 2015 Skeena summer runs were 27,761. The Tyee Test Fishery is conducted at the mouth of the Skeena and uses a short net, at a specific location, at specific times and tide heights, with a constant time limit of each set. This is good data and provides some historically trending but by no means as accurate as the Sustut which counts every summer run steelhead. As a result a factor (multiplier) is used for every steelhead caught in the test fishery net.

I will sum it up here: You have accurate Sustut #'s that represent 1.3 % of Skeena summer run steelhead equating to a population estimate for the Skeena system of 94,653, then we have a population estimate that uses a multiplier for the Tyee test fishery and indicates a population of 27,761 (two very different estimates for the same system and year). Taking the the population estimate difference between the two that's 66,882. I think you can see my point how bias the data is and that the Tyee multiplier is way too low to reasonably represent Skeena summer run steelhead.

If we take what we now know and split the difference that's 27,761 + 33,441 = 61,202 (ultra conservative population estimate) and well over MSY.

Pending what side of the fence one stands on will be the data that is touted. What I've done is split the difference down the middle and still supports a biological surplus of Skeena summer run steelhead.

lange1212
04-21-2016, 02:42 PM
So you really think that because some people want a kill fishery for wild steelhead that DFO will comply?
What happens if DFO decides that killing steelhead is good for business because that would mean no more restrictions for the commie gill/seine nets ? Unrestricted commercial fisheries at the mouth/approach areas will decimate the steelhead you so desperately need to kill.

For my clarification and understanding it's your position that commercial fishing near the mouth of the Skeena is largely responsible for summer run steelhead declines and mortality as a result of by catch? Don't need a long winded answer just yes or no.

Telkwa Hunter
04-21-2016, 06:49 PM
My views on the commercial fishery by-catch are completely irrelevant to the asinine proposal from the BCWF to reinstate a wild steelhead kill fishery and steelhead hatchery on the Bulkley.
But it would be fascinating to hear from the BCWF on the effects of commercial fishery by-catch and any associated population declines of salmon and steelhead stocks in the Skeena.
Just don't quote numbers from the commies as it's well known that they only report a fraction of their by-catch.

lange1212
04-22-2016, 12:09 AM
My views on the commercial fishery by-catch are completely irrelevant to the asinine proposal from the BCWF to reinstate a wild steelhead kill fishery and steelhead hatchery on the Bulkley.
But it would be fascinating to hear from the BCWF on the effects of commercial fishery by-catch and any associated population declines of salmon and steelhead stocks in the Skeena.
Just don't quote numbers from the commies as it's well known that they only report a fraction of their by-catch.

Why are you avoiding the question and going on the attack?

I just wanted to know what your stance was on commercial by-catch to see if we could actually agree on something.

To be clear the views I express on this forum are my personal opinions and not to be construed and or eluded to as the position of the BCWF. Just like your views and opinions are yours and not the formal position of the Steelhead Society of BC. Or are they?

Telkwa Hunter
04-22-2016, 06:10 AM
Why are you avoiding the question and going on the attack?

I just wanted to know what your stance was on commercial by-catch to see if we could actually agree on something.

To be clear the views I express on this forum are my personal opinions and not to be construed and or eluded to as the position of the BCWF. Just like your views and opinions are yours and not the formal position of the Steelhead Society of BC. Or are they?

I'm not a member of the Steelhead Society.

SPEYMAN
04-22-2016, 01:06 PM
What is the Steelhead Society?

Formed in 1970 by a group of dedicated Steelhead anglers concerned about the state of wild steelhead stocks and the wild rivers of British Columbia, the Steelhead Society is a charitable non-profit river conservation organization. The Society has evolved to advocate for the health of all wild salmonids and wild rivers in British Columbia.

Considered to be "one of the most important conservation organizations in North America", the Steelhead Society primarily consists of members from across North America, but has members from around the world. Our members' support, as well as private donations and monies raised through fundraising campaigns, funds advocacy actions and awareness in the public spectrum, and acts to encourage positive change in government and private enterprise.

What is the aim of the Steelhead Society?

The Steelhead Society's mandate is to encourage the conservation and restoration of wild fish and the wild rivers they inhabit. To this end, the Steelhead Society has been able to form alliances and partnerships with First Nations; Federal and Provincial government agencies, politicians, forestry companies, grass roots organizations, media, and outdoor equipment manufacturers.

These alliances encourage awareness of the sensitivity of watersheds and their inhabitants, with a unified goal of improving damaged habitats for the greater good of all involved parties.

The Steelhead Society is dedicated to the ongoing advocacy of environmental education, stream restoration, dam decommissioning options, maintaining flow rates, mitigating the effects of hatchery programs, effective control of the Aquaculture Industry, as well as holding government and public agencies responsible for the natural heritage rivers provide.

Society members have in common a dedication to protecting, enhancing and restoring BC's wild salmon and steelhead habitat.

lange1212
04-22-2016, 04:06 PM
Speyman,

How many members does the SSOBC have Province wide?

Caribou_lou
04-22-2016, 05:47 PM
What is the Steelhead Society?

Formed in 1970 by a group of dedicated Steelhead anglers concerned about the state of wild steelhead stocks and the wild rivers of British Columbia, the Steelhead Society is a charitable non-profit river conservation organization. The Society has evolved to advocate for the health of all wild salmonids and wild rivers in British Columbia.

Considered to be "one of the most important conservation organizations in North America", the Steelhead Society primarily consists of members from across North America, but has members from around the world. Our members' support, as well as private donations and monies raised through fundraising campaigns, funds advocacy actions and awareness in the public spectrum, and acts to encourage positive change in government and private enterprise.

What is the aim of the Steelhead Society?

The Steelhead Society's mandate is to encourage the conservation and restoration of wild fish and the wild rivers they inhabit. To this end, the Steelhead Society has been able to form alliances and partnerships with First Nations; Federal and Provincial government agencies, politicians, forestry companies, grass roots organizations, media, and outdoor equipment manufacturers.

These alliances encourage awareness of the sensitivity of watersheds and their inhabitants, with a unified goal of improving damaged habitats for the greater good of all involved parties.

The Steelhead Society is dedicated to the ongoing advocacy of environmental education, stream restoration, dam decommissioning options, maintaining flow rates, mitigating the effects of hatchery programs, effective control of the Aquaculture Industry, as well as holding government and public agencies responsible for the natural heritage rivers provide.

Society members have in common a dedication to protecting, enhancing and restoring BC's wild salmon and steelhead habitat.

Just took a look at there website. That was good for a laugh. I recommend everyone else to do the same. Almost all the pictures on their website are shown holding the fish out of the water for a picture after completely exhausting them. I'm sure that's great for recovery. A few pictures of fish laying in inches of water. What many C&R advocates suggest you do NOT do! And I highly recommend you click on the Donate link. Not to donate money but take a close look at that steelheads eye. I've seen a few fish with eyes going forward like that. And that only means one thing. There is a hook in that eye. No joke. Please check it out.

SPEYMAN
04-22-2016, 09:10 PM
Please do, check out the site and see how twisted some can interpret the actual presentation. I can assure you of one thing, killing a steelhead is final. Some profess to have expertise but reject scientific fact. Reminds me of the saying,"don't confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up". Different strokes for different folks, opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one. Hatcheries are not the answer.

Caribou_lou
04-22-2016, 09:34 PM
A Steelhead released with one eye is also final. Better off on my table than at the bottom of a River.