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

[darrin6109]

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.

[Island Idiots]

I do not have any information on what qaulifies as an "abundance" of steelhead. I do not have any kind of an educated opinion on your position as far as weather to harvest the Skeena Steelhead or not. I do know for sure, that "Conservation" includes the sustainable harvest of fish or wildlife.
Fisherman and Hunters play an important part in conservation, and so I do not see a problem with the BCWF persuing the right for fisherman to harvest steelhead, if the science supports it. Its all about sustainability, and that has a lot to do with habitat etc.

[Walking Buffalo]

The BCWF and all BC residents should NEVER give up in trying to establish and maintain Wild Steelhead populations that can sustain a harvest.

Why is this hard to understand?

[weatherby_man]

I dont see any reason to harvest these magnificent fish in this system, and I don't agree that there is a level of "abundance" in the Skeena system to allow for a kill fishery. The Steelheads lifecycle demands respect and I think we should allow these fish to return as many times as they possibly can in their lifetime. If you want to harvest steelhead to eat hit one of the hatchery rivers and get your eats there. Lets not let the Skeena run go the way of the Thompson run.

[Eastbranch]

When you start considering the fact historical abundance was in excess of 80,000 (an extremely conservative estimate) and average escapement since the mid 50s has been less than 40,000, the BCWF's argument starts looking pretty stupid. It looks even more stupid when you consider that there is already somewhere in the order of a 5-10% harvest rate being applied to returning summer run adults via commercial interception and FSC fisheries. Peter Larkin and a dozen other eminent fish scientists debunked Maximum Sustainable Yield and 'harvestable surplus' in relation to fish populations 35 years ago. How this is even a discussion item is beyond me. The BCWF is in the dark ages about this issue. You don't kill wild steelhead. End of discussion.

[steel_ram]

I for one will never see the need to kill a wild steelhead. I can only note on the rivers I fish on Vancouver Island, but there needs to be a huge turn in a positive direction before anything like that is considered. Returns are pathetic in contrast to what they were and what I feel they should be. I prefer to error on the side of conservation.

[Jagermeister]

If the Skeena steelhead returns are in such a deplorable state, then let us not have a fishery at all. I would venture to say that catch and release is detrimental to the 2nd and 3rd year returning fish mortality and they probably do not spawn.
And while we are at it, let us seek to have the commericial fishery at the estuary moved further to sea.

[Gunner]

Don't forget,the BCWF is driven by grassroots.In this case the resolution to allow harvest of wild fish was put forward by the member clubs in the Skeena Region.The Resolution was voted on and approved,therefore the Fed must bring it forward.It is locally driven.Personally I do not support the harvest of wild steelhead in ANY river system at this time or in the forseeable future. Gunner

[Eastbranch]

They're not in a deplorable state, but they're already at the limit they're going to take without going off the deep end like every other stock south of them. C&R angling has proven to have a negligible impact on steelhead but obviously in some cases there will be mortality and reduced spawning success. This has become a bigger problem now that every joe plumber with a username and a twitter account can post a live report of where when and how to catch fish. With respect to 2nd and 3rd time spawners, they are so few in number they aren't worth noting in this discussion but they are incredibly more valuable to the spawning population than first time fish. If we got rid of the gillnets and the purse seiners we might see a few more repeat spawners but DFO doesn't seem the least bit interested in recognizing how badly they've mismanaged the Skeena fishery.

The major problem with what you posted is that we need to move the gillnet fleet into the garbage bin, not further offshore. Putting them further offshore would only increase the problems we're already having with the mixed stock fishery. The gillnet fleet works for 2 months a year if they're lucky. The other 10 months they are sitting on their asses taking handouts from the government bitching about how they don't get to fish. I know this is a non-starter on HBC but the only smart move is to buy out the gillnet fleet and move all the fish harvesting and processing to in-river fishwheel, weir, seine and dipnet fisheries. That way you're harvesting specifically from the stocks you want and none of the rest. Unfortunately, rural BC has the idea that buying anything from First Nations is 'bad' which is about the dumbest thing going in BC right now.

If you're interested in seeing the stark naked view of this entire situation, buy Bob Hooton's book Skeena Steelhead.


If the Skeena steelhead returns are in such a deplorable state, then let us not have a fishery at all. I would venture to say that catch and release is detrimental to the 2nd and 3rd year returning fish mortality and they probably do not spawn.
And while we are at it, let us seek to have the commericial fishery at the estuary moved further to sea.

[Gateholio]

If there are enough to support a harvest, I dont' see any problem with killing some. Steelhead taste really good.

[open-sights]

Could solve a few problem very simply - Region 5 and 6 Seal hunt - open them up, limit of 5/hunter and watch the stealhead and salmon numbers take care of themselves. Everyone wins, natives get a fishery, commercial guys benefit, and sporties have a double win.

[steel_ram]

Some of the biggest steelhead of seen have been in the by-catch bin at the fish plant I once worked in. They were caught at sea, could have been going anywhere, a healthy run or the last of some unique run on some tiny river.

[Gateholio]

That is indeed pretty funny to note that the Steelhead Alliance representative doesn't understand the definition of conservation :)

[coach]

If there are enough to support a harvest, I dont' see any problem with killing some.

Isn't that how it should be for all species? Since when do we decide which fish or animal is more important than the next one. NOT arguing for sustainable harvest is a step toward banning wolf, grizzly hunting, etc. The BCWF has been pretty clear that conservation comes first but surplus populations should be allowed to be harvested.

[Eastbranch]

I think it's pretty funny that someone with a high school diploma and a chef's ticket thinks he does...

That is indeed pretty funny to note that the Steelhead Alliance representative doesn't understand the definition of conservation :)

When we can put 80,000 summer run steelhead back in the Skeena, I'll consider talking to the BCWF about their definition of 'conservation' and how it somehow involved killing their fair share of everything. Until then, they should keep their greedy mouths shut.

Everyone needs to understand this: There is no such thing as a surplus population of fish. You don't get to apply mammal biology to fish to suit your desired outcome.

http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/fish510/PDF/Larkin.PDF

[Island Idiots]

I think it's pretty funny that someone with a high school diploma and a chef's ticket thinks he does...


When we can put 80,000 summer run steelhead back in the Skeena, I'll consider talking to the BCWF about their definition of 'conservation' and how it somehow involved killing their fair share of everything. Until then, they should keep their greedy mouths shut.

Everyone needs to understand this: There is no such thing as a surplus population of fish. You don't get to apply mammal biology to fish to suit your desired outcome.

http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/fish510/PDF/Larkin.PDF

Weather its Perch or Steelehead, if there is a sustainable population, then harvest them. In other words, if the Steelhead run will survive a harvest, then harvest. I do not get the idea that Steelhead are some sort of holy grail. They are fish. I eat fish. They taste good. If there are enough of them I would very much like to eat some, end of story.

[one-shot-wonder]

Weather its Perch or Steelehead, if there is a sustainable population, then harvest them. In other words, if the Steelhead run will survive a harvest, then harvest. I do not get the idea that Steelhead are some sort of holy grail. They are fish. I eat fish. They taste good. If there are enough of them I would very much like to eat some, end of story.

Absolutely....based on this being a conservation concern we should maybe think about issuing a specified amount of "tags" to sustain the pop. appropriately and allow a harvest to still take place......hhhhhhhmmmmmm sounds familiar doesnt it.

[Gateholio]

I think it's pretty funny that someone with a high school diploma and a chef's ticket thinks he does...


When we can put 80,000 summer run steelhead back in the Skeena, I'll consider talking to the BCWF about their definition of 'conservation' and how it somehow involved killing their fair share of everything. Until then, they should keep their greedy mouths shut.

Everyone needs to understand this: There is no such thing as a surplus population of fish. You don't get to apply mammal biology to fish to suit your desired outcome.

http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/fish510/PDF/Larkin.PDF

Kris, it's always nice to see very young people like yourself getting involved in conservation. Maybe when you are a little older an have a bit more actual life experience you will be able to see the difference between conservation and total preservation. One day you may also see the dangers of putting one species on a pedestal over others.

I know you have a tendency to get an idea in your head and stubbornly stick to it despite facts (remember when you stubbornly defended your position that there were "herds" of whitetail/mule deer in BC?) but try to open your mind a bit and see the difference in the conservation and preservation approaches. This is a statement declaring only taking the preservation route:

They just cannot accept that wild steelhead in BC will never be available for their killing pleasure.

It's not much different than statements made by groups like PETA that condemn hunting. Maybe when grow up a bit you will understand.

[Surrey Boy]

Could solve a few problem very simply - Region 5 and 6 Seal hunt - open them up, limit of 5/hunter and watch the stealhead and salmon numbers take care of themselves. Everyone wins, natives get a fishery, commercial guys benefit, and sporties have a double win.


I'm all over it.

But why not regions 1 and 2?

[Eastbranch]

Of course there is a such thing as a sustainable harvest level, but you need a hell of a lot more fish in the river than what there is now. Start asking yourselves why the BCWF is asking for this even though the Ministry has repeatedly stated a harvest on wild steelhead is a non starter? Are skeena region BCWF reps smarter than Ministry biologists? Since when did the BCWF become a group that attacks the Ministry based on their own wants and needs and ignores good science and management? You don't manage steelhead by killing them. The collapse of all populations south of the Dean is pretty much the evidence for that.
The economic value of a single fish alive in the river is exponentially greater than it is dead in a little chief smoker if you don't want to buy into the biological argument. How much money does joe farmer from Smithers who bonks a steelhead in his back yard contribute to the local economy by killing that fish? Nothing. Maybe 15 bucks in tackle. How much does an NRA spend to C&R that same fish? A week of guided fishing will run you about $4k on the Blkley...

[Gateholio]

O
The economic value of a single fish alive in the river is exponentially greater than it is dead in a little chief smoker if you don't want to buy into the biological argument. How much money does joe farmer from Smithers who bonks a steelhead in his back yard contribute to the local economy by killing that fish? Nothing. Maybe 15 bucks in tackle. How much does an NRA spend to C&R that same fish? A week of guided fishing will run you about $4k on the Blkley...


This is a similar argument that anti hunting groups make- That it's better to sell "bear watching" trips than to allow residents of BC to hunt bears. Again, it's a preservation approach, not conservation approach.

"Joe Farmer" works and pays taxes. The livelihood of a guide shouldn't be placed on a pedestal, either.

[Eastbranch]

Kris, it's always nice to see very young people like yourself getting involved in conservation. Maybe when you are a little older an have a bit more actual life experience you will be able to see the difference between conservation and total preservation. One day you may also see the dangers of putting one species on a pedestal over others.

I know you have a tendency to get an idea in your head and stubbornly stick to it despite facts (remember when you stubbornly defended your position that there where "herds" of whitetail/mule deer in BC?) but try to open your mind a bit and see the difference in the conservation and preservation approaches. This is a statement declaring only taking the preservation route:

They just cannot accept that wild steelhead in BC will never be available for their killing pleasure.

It's not much different than statements made by groups like PETA that condemn hunting. Maybe when grow up a bit you will understand.

Listen smart guy, you can believe whatever you want about me and ignore the facts, but you're not smarter than me and your knowledge of conservation wouldn't fill a thimble next to my real world experience in fish science and management. You can pretend that I'm the same 17 year old kid that didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground but the fact is that was nine years ago and I've already forgotten more about fish and fish management than you'll ever know. So why don't you sit down and let the big boys do the talking. You picked your fight and got your reaction out of me. Now sit down shut up and learn something.

But that's unlikely, you'll probably run back to your mod forum and ask marc for permission to ban me because god forbid you actually learn something from someone smarter than you.

The BCWF is in the dark ages with respect to fish management. If we had a dedicated conservation organization in BC, that would be pretty evident. But in lieu of that, you're just going to have to believe me. Conservation is not killing everything that moves in order to protect your interests in hunting and angling. There is a staggering difference between advocacy for use and advocacy for conservation and in my experience, there aren't more than six people on this forum who are capable of comprehending that. Sustainable harvest is one thing and that's fine. Assuming that the BCWF is the be-all end-all of knowledge about what those levels are is idiotic. Every ounce of fact available shows as clearly as glass that Skeena River steelhead cannot, and may never, support a harvest fishery. Their biology and life history does not allow for it and even if we could cram every last inch of habitat with steelhead, the harvest level is already at or exceeding a sustainable level so it is unlikely that even if the population doubled there would be room for a safe harvest using the precautionary approach and sound principles of conservation.

The only variable that influences skeena summer steelhead right now is the sockeye population. If it's high, skeena steelhead take a beating in the gillnets. If it's low, they make the minimum for statistical habitat seeding. If you coupled a resident harvest with a high sockeye year, you could wipe out an entire spawning population in a week. That is not sound conservation and it will not stand. The fact that the BCWF is asking for this undermines the legacy of people who worked for what conservation really is, not what the emotional, uninformed user base thinks it should be.

[Gateholio]

[QUOTE=ArcticRed;1198126]Listen smart guy, you can believe whatever you want about me and ignore the facts, but you're not smarter than me and your knowledge of conservation wouldn't fill a thimble next to my real world experience in fish science and management. You can pretend that I'm the same 17 year old kid that didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground but the fact is that was nine years ago and I've already forgotten more about fish and fish management than you'll ever know. So why don't you sit down and let the big boys do the talking. You picked your fight and got your reaction out of me. Now sit down shut up and learn something.

But that's unlikely, you'll probably run back to your mod forum and ask marc for permission to ban me because god forbid you actually learn something from someone smarter than you.

The BCWF is in the dark ages with respect to fish management. If we had a dedicated conservation organization in BC, that would be pretty evident. But in lieu of that, you're just going to have to believe me. Conservation is not killing everything that moves in order to protect your interests in hunting and angling. There is a staggering difference between advocacy for use and advocacy for conservation and in my experience, there aren't more than six people on this forum who are capable of comprehending that. Sustainable harvest is one thing and that's fine. Assuming that the BCWF is the be-all end-all of knowledge about what those levels are is idiotic. Every ounce of fact available shows as clearly as glass that Skeena River steelhead cannot, and may never, support a harvest fishery. Their biology and life history does not allow for it and even if we could cram every last inch of habitat with steelhead, the harvest level is already at or exceeding a sustainable level so it is unlikely that even if the population doubled there would be room for a safe harvest using the precautionary approach and sound principles of conservation.

The only variable that influences skeena summer steelhead right now is the sockeye population. If it's high, skeena steelhead take a beating in the gillnets. If it's low, they make the minimum for statistical habitat seeding. If you coupled a resident harvest with a high sockeye year, you could wipe out an entire spawning population in a week. That is not sound conservation and it will not stand. The fact that the BCWF is asking for this undermines the legacy of people who worked for what conservation really is, not what the emotional, uninformed user base thinks it should be.

Kris, it's interesting to see how you view things. You say that I "picked a fight with you" when in fact it was you who fired the first shot when you attempted (and failed) at belittling me. Then you go on to boast about yourself and how obviously ignorant anyone that may have a different view on things than you is. It goes to show that even at the wise old age at 26 years old, you are still the same immature little kid that has been banned from here several times because you can't help but froth at the mouth if anyone disagrees with you.

And by the way, your "Hybrid" thread was only 6 years ago, when you were a 20 year old 3rd year UNBC Wildlife/Fisheries student. You knew absolutely everything then, too. :)

[Eastbranch]

You've been prodding me for a fight since I started on here a few months ago. And I'm glad you fact checked that for me, I really cared. Thanks also for totally sidestepping the topic at hand because you're incapable of discussing it. Dredge up the past because you can't hack the present. The data speaks for itself, the BCWF is so far out in left field on this one it boggles the mind. One day I'm going to buy a membership and start coming to meetings again. You're going to have to nut up and deal with the facts then.

[Jagermeister]

20 year old 3rd year UNBC Wildlife/Fisheries student. You knew absolutely everything then, too.
Well, that is all coming to light now, isn't it? And I would venture to guess that he is on the payroll of some fish guide.

[Gateholio]

You've been prodding me for a fight since I started on here a few months ago. And I'm glad you fact checked that for me, I really cared. Thanks also for totally sidestepping the topic at hand because you're incapable of discussing it. Dredge up the past because you can't hack the present. The data speaks for itself, the BCWF is so far out in left field on this one it boggles the mind. One day I'm going to buy a membership and start coming to meetings again. You're going to have to nut up and deal with the facts then.

Once more, it's interesting to see how you view things. If you wanted to only discuss the topic at hand, why would you try to insult me? Why not just deal with the topic? Instead, you go out of you way to do what you always do when someone has a differing opinion than you. If your position is strong, you don't need to try to make ad hominem comments, the position should support itself.

It's because of this trait that you lack credibility. Well, that and your incredibly high opinion of yourself, your incredibly low opinion of everyone else and your tendency to use inflammatory rhetoric to support your position ;)

BTW I was just rereading your hybrid thread, when you were posting as PGKris then as Tinney. It's some good humor. :)

[darrin6109]

honey! pass the corn!
http://i846.photobucket.com/albums/ab23/darrinandmichelle/popcorn_girl.jpg

[Old Crow]

Yep **** the BCWF..

[Eastbranch]

Once more, it's interesting to see how you view things. If you wanted to only discuss the topic at hand, why would you try to insult me? Why not just deal with the topic? Instead, you go out of you way to do what you always do when someone has a differing opinion than you. If your position is strong, you don't need to try to make ad hominem comments, the position should support itself.

It's because of this trait that you lack credibility. Well, that and your incredibly high opinion of yourself, your incredibly low opinion of everyone else and your tendency to use inflammatory rhetoric to support your position ;)

BTW I was just rereading your hybrid thread, when you were posting as PGKris then as Tinney. It's some good humor. :)

You took a crack at Keith Douglas and the NCSA, the only group trying to keep steelhead alive in the skeena. I defended him by stating facts: You don't know squat about steelhead. My argument stands for itself and I can sit here and re-type Hooton's whole book if you want. The facts are there and the Ministry backs them up seven days a week: you can't have a sustainable kill fishery for steelhead in the skeena system. The BCWF is out to lunch. You can try and attack my credibility all you want, but frankly I don't give a damn. We're not going to lie down and let the BCWF run roughshod over facts and science based management with their greed and emotional rhetoric.

[TPK]

If there are enough fish to sustain a FN's fishery, then there should be a resident opportunity as well.

Catch and release kills what .. approx. 25%? It would be nice to be able to take one home instead of watching a badly hooked one that your sure isn't going to survive float down the river.

As for what the BCWF wants .. we are a grass roots org, our members tell us what they want, we don't tell them what they want. So consider that, it's our members asking for changes to the SSCP that would allow for a resident harvest and for stream augmentation, not the BCWF telling our members what they want.

Assuming those throwing stones at the BCWF have read the SSCP review and BCWF proposal ... what is so far out to lunch with the proposals that has you going off like a .. well like a petulant child?

[TexasWalker]

C&R mortality is nowhere near 25%

**** the BCWF!!!!
If it was up to those morons people would be allowed two a day on the Thompson.

I'm sure some of the dim wits from this thread would be lined up with their roe and bobbers!!

[steel_ram]

Mortality of catch and release of Steelhead can be less than 5% depending on the handling of fish. Dummies that bring them into boats, or hall them up out of the water for more than a few seconds greatly increase that.
I have only come across a few dead steelhead while fishing heavily fished waters. Generally anything dead usually works it's way to somewhere visible. Bait caught fish IMO have more chance of being hooked deeper, near the gill rakers.

[Gunner]

You took a crack at Keith Douglas and the NCSA, the only group trying to keep steelhead alive in the skeena. I defended him by stating facts: You don't know squat about steelhead. My argument stands for itself and I can sit here and re-type Hooton's whole book if you want. The facts are there and the Ministry backs them up seven days a week: you can't have a sustainable kill fishery for steelhead in the skeena system. The BCWF is out to lunch. You can try and attack my credibility all you want, but frankly I don't give a damn. We're not going to lie down and let the BCWF run roughshod over facts and science based management with their greed and emotional rhetoric.I should have guessed,a Bob Hooton wannabe.I've known Bob since the 70s,and to say that his ideas are controversial within the circle of fisheries management is an understatement.I have already stated that I disagree with a kill fishery for wild fish,and I know plenty about steelhead,having fished the Skeena area (and the rest of the steelhead streams of BC) since the late 60s.I was a Director of the SSBC back when that meant something.The Skeena system cannot handle a retention fishery due to overharvest by mainly the commercial gill net fishery,as well as the aboriginal fishery and also habitat degredation of tributary spawning streams(Copper,Clore,Telkwa ,Kitwanga,Suskwa and many others),mainly due to logging.A province wide moratorium on hatchery steelhead(which I support in most cases) means that there will not be harvestable hatchery fish in the Skeena system,and there are no surpluses of wild fish.I find no fault with your conclusions but plenty with your arrogant,overbearing rhetoric.It reminds me a lot of Bob,and I considered him a total a*****e,personality wise.You definitely havent changed. Gunner

[Gateholio]

]
You took a crack at Keith Douglas and the NCSA, the only group trying to keep steelhead alive in the skeena. I defended him by stating facts:

No, you defended his inflammatory rhetoric by attacking me and posting more inflammatory rhetoric.



My argument stands for itself and I can sit here and re-type Hooton's whole book if you want. The facts are there and the Ministry backs them up seven days a week: you can't have a sustainable kill fishery for steelhead in the skeena system. The BCWF is out to lunch. You can try and attack my credibility all you want, but frankly I don't give a damn. We're not going to lie down and let the BCWF run roughshod over facts and science based management with their greed and emotional rhetoric.

If your argument stands for itself, you shouldn't need to indulge in insults and inflammatory rhetoric. You will appear more credible when (if?) you can understand this.

[TPK]

Thanks for the info TexasWalker, I didn't know what the mortality rate was and obviously was guessing .. how evere there is mortality with catch and release (which is my point) so why not allow people to keep the one that won't make it?

[IronNoggin]

... I find no fault with your conclusions but plenty with your arrogant, overbearing rhetoric. It reminds me a lot of Bob, and I considered him a total a*****e, personality wise. You definitely haven't changed. Gunner

Bang-ON Gunner! I agree, STRONGLY, with everything you just posted. Certainly could not have said it half as well myself! THANKS!!

Cheers,
Nog

[Jagermeister]

I should have guessed,a Bob Hooton wannabe.I've known Bob since the 70s,and to say that his ideas are controversial within the circle of fisheries management is an understatement.I have already stated that I disagree with a kill fishery for wild fish,and I know plenty about steelhead,having fished the Skeena area (and the rest of the steelhead streams of BC) since the late 60s.I was a Director of the SSBC back when that meant something.The Skeena system cannot handle a retention fishery due to overharvest by mainly the commercial gill net fishery,as well as the aboriginal fishery and also habitat degredation of tributary spawning streams(Copper,Clore,Telkwa ,Kitwanga,Suskwa and many others),mainly due to logging.A province wide moratorium on hatchery steelhead(which I support in most cases) means that there will not be harvestable hatchery fish in the Skeena system,and there are no surpluses of wild fish.I find no fault with your conclusions but plenty with your arrogant,overbearing rhetoric.It reminds me a lot of Bob,and I considered him a total a*****e,personality wise.You definitely havent changed. Gunner
While this is quite true, it is only the sports fishers that are being held accountable. Why should we as residents not be able to have retention while the rest of the user groups run roughshod over resource. As always, punish the resident.

[Hook or Bullet]

If there is enough fish to support a harvest then open it up and give people a choice and a chance. I haven't fished for steelhead for 6 years now - since CR only started. I didn't used to kill steelhead, but I did keep one if it was a bleeder.

[jml11]

For those that want to see actual facts, graph current as of Sept 7th, 2012. The green line represents the Pacific Scientific Advice Review Committe's (essentially DFO) Maximum Sustainable Yield which looks to be arround 35,000 fish. The red line represents the minimum number of spawners required to adeqaultey support the stock which is estimated at 23,000 past the test fishery. I reall don't know much about the Skeena Steelhead or the Skeena watershed for that matter, but I imagine the BCWF is looking at these graphs and seeing an overall rising trend in steelhead since the mid seventies and consistent returns above the minimum with the past past 5 years all above the MSY. I don't fish the skeena for steelhead so I have little opinion on this really but it seems that there are more than enough salmon in the watershed to fill freezers. I ran into the Regional BCWF presdient who mentioned this to me this past July. They were hoping to be able to bonk 1 or 2 fish per year per person I believe.
http://steelheadalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/TyeeSteelheadEscapement.jpg (http://steelheadalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/TyeeSteelheadEscapement.jpg)

[wsm]

Isn't that how it should be for all species? Since when do we decide which fish or animal is more important than the next one. NOT arguing for sustainable harvest is a step toward banning wolf, grizzly hunting, etc. The BCWF has been pretty clear that conservation comes first but surplus populations should be allowed to be harvested. agreed , howver if there is any question as to weather there is a surplus NO CHANCES SHOULD BE TAKEN . MY .02

[lange1212]

Thanks JMl11 for posting some science based data on Skeena steelhead. Best available science is what needs to drive fish and wildlife management respecting and managing for all stakeholders and values. Unfortunatly when it comes to steelhead some make false claims of "conservation concerns" to drive a catch and release only agenda. When the science fails to support their claims they then shift to personal attacks, emotion and bully tactics.


Not only does the Tyee Test fishery show abundant steelhead in the Skeena River, so to does data collected from the Nisga'a fishery and the wet'suwet'en steelhead tagging program which also includes data on the Nass system. Best available sciense tells us Steelhead populations in the Skeena Region are doing very well, and are abundant.

Given the positive data the Ministry should return a limited retention opportunity on wild steelhead for resident anglers in the Skeena Region. If they will not and base this on lack of data and/or conservation concern then remove the species from the routine management zone, and shut the steelhead fishery down until such time the population can sustain a limited resident restention. Its hypocritical for the Ministry and those who promote catch and release only that contributes to wasteful mortality (regardless of method used) and critisize those that wish to take a wild steelhead home to eat with his/her family.

[Eastbranch]

This is the graph to pay attention to. Multiply the 'index' by 245 to get escapement. Average all years - 24,500. Abundance? The only reason there were good years in 2010 and this year (which we're not even sure of yet) was because of poor sockeye returns. Couple bad recruitment, poor ocean survival, a good sockeye year and lots of fishermen at Polymar, and you would wipe out every small tributary above the sustut.

http://steelheadalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/TyeeSteelheadCum.jpg

[lange1212]

Look again at the Sockeye data, was a great return on the Skeena. So your argument that low sockeye returns impeded commercial fisheries thus high steelhead returns in 2012 holds no water.

The graph you show supports that steelhead for 2012 are above the all time avg (since 1956) and just below the record return of 1998. Note that the non-retention of wild steelhead was introduced in 2007. So the record return of 1998 and the years prior would have been subject to wild steelhead retention on the Skeena.

I very much appreciate you posting the graph, but appears our perspectives differ. Looking at the compilation of the Tyee test fishery since 1956 and making a weighted avg. trend that ballances out low and high returns indicated that steelhead returns are and continue to trend upwards.

Nisga'a and Wet'sue'eten have also compiled steelhead data in the Skeena Region on steelhead and is also worthy of consideration. It also supports healthy steelhead populations.

If steelhead in the Skeena are of such concern why do the plethora of angling guide advertisments not point this out. From reading the many ads one could conclude that the guiding sector strongly supports robust steelhead populations. In addition if there was a conservation concern why would the Ministry promote the addition of 586 to the existing 414 rod days on Skeena IV (total rod days of 1000). Certainly if there was a conservation concern to upper Skeena steelhead the ministry and guides would not support such an added impact. Further the guiding season for steelhead on the Kalum was increased by a week. It appears that there's no steelhead conservation concern when it comes to increased commercial exploitation, but when a resident angler requests a limited retention opportunity on surplus stocks the worlds falling.

Further the ministry identifies Skeena steelhead as being with in a routine management zone, meaning of no conservation concern.

To me the solution is simple, if there's a conservation concern whereby residents can't have a limited retention of wild steelhead based on lack of data or conservation, then there's no room for associated mortality derived from a catch and release fishery (regardless of method used). As such the conservation approach should be to remove steelhead from the routine management zone, list them as a species at risk, and shut the fishery down for all users until such time the data exists or the conservation concern has been effectively addressed.

In my eyes many groups have abused the term conservation concern to unjustly support or promote regulations in a bias matter that impact everyone else but themselves, their preferred angling method, or their clients interets.

Time to call the bluff! If there's a conservation concern shut the steelhead fishery down for all stakeholders, and we'll see how quickly those claiming the worlds falling will change their views.

[Eastbranch]

You have a flawed view of how fisheries management should work. You don't manage at extremes like 'fishery is a free-for-all' or 'fishery is closed'. There *is* a gradient of risk associated with managing steelhead. On that gradient, C&R fishing is less risky than a smash em up at Polymar kill fishery.

1) The sockeye run was not good this year. That's why there was only a week of fishing, instead of the usual month. Take a look at this graph and tell me sockeye fisheries didn't slaughter steelhead. Steelhead were above the long term average for this year and in 2010 because of poor sockeye numbers and associated fishery. period. There's no other magic at play here. Sockeye poor = steelhead good. 1998, 2010 and so far, 2012 have been anomalies. Has everyone forgotten 2009, which was probably the worst run year since the mid 60s??? Why? Because the sockeye run was sky frickin high, that's why. You couple 2009 with a kill fishery at Polymar, Ferry Island and Smithers and you'll permanently depress Skeena summer run stocks. It's simple logic.
http://steelheadalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/TyeeSteelheadDailyToAug19Gillnet.jpg

2) The recreational fishery has been a constant since the 1950s. You can barely make the argument that average run size since the mid 90s has been increasing but the only thing you could possibly correlate that to in terms of the recreational fishery is the closure of the kill fishery! It makes no sense to shut down a multi million dollar C&R fishing industry based on known C&R mortality rates less than 5%. http://nativefishsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Hooking-Mortality-Steelhead-2001.pdf

3) The SSCP is and will probably continue to be completely lacking in common sense. What's going to happen this fall when 300 steelhead return to the Thompson and that gets classified as "RMZ"??? System failure...

4) The only thing that influences steelhead run size in any meaningful way is the strength of the sockeye run. Once that's been dealt with and we have 80,000 summer runs going past tyee, I'll be willing to talk to the BCWF about their small penis syndrome. Until then, the BCWF can go stack up on Fulton if they want to eat fish. What this boils down to is greed.

[Eastbranch]

And while we're at it, the Nisga'a have the best fisheries program in BC. period. they are doing some amazing stuff up there, but they don't belong in this thread, because those are Nass steelhead and they fall under the Nisg'aa Agreement.

The situation at Moricetown is a mess. It needs to stop. I'd rather have them killing a few steelhead than handling 40+% of the run. You want to talk about handling mortality and something the Ministry can actually deal with, start there. Those fish get seined and tagged below the falls, then dipnetted and caught at the falls, usually fall back down the falls and then have to do the whole thing over again. I saw the data. They netted some of those fish more than 5 times. Buit in terms of what the BCWF is asking for....if they get a kill fishery, what message is that going to send to the Wetsuweten when they've, verbally anyway, agreed not to kill steelhead as long as they get their tagging program? They're going to go back to gaffs is what's going to happen. So what the BCWF is in reality asking for is a doubling of the current steelhead harvest rate, which is already at or above what is considered by many fisheries biologists a 'precautionary approach' level.

You can't make the facts work on this one. No way, no how.

[lange1212]

From the tyee test fishery for Sept 12 sockeye TTD, 2012 = 1795, 2011 = 2256, 2010 = 1342 and 2009 = 1276. My point was that the sockeye return for 2012 was good and is reflected in the data, was it a record return no, but a good one none the less.

I very much appreciate your honesty and that in your eyes economics and maximizing commercial exploitaion of wild steelhead trumps conservation. My view and perspective differ, either there's a conservation concern or not. If there is the shut down the steelhead fishery. What I get out of your response is remove a generations old tradition, culture and harvest for food value while touting "conservation concern" as a defense, however when it comes to increased exploitation of wild steelhead by commercial interests, added rod days, extended steelhead guiding periods, $$$$$.... you have no issue. There's a word for that Hypocrite!

[TPK]

Come on Arctic Red ... small penis syndrome?? Seriously, this is your shot at the BCWF?

[Eastbranch]

From the tyee test fishery for Sept 12 sockeye TTD, 2012 = 1795, 2011 = 2256, 2010 = 1342 and 2009 = 1276. My point was that the sockeye return for 2012 was good and is reflected in the data, was it a record return no, but a good one none the less.

I very much appreciate your honesty and that in your eyes economics and maximizing commercial exploitaion of wild steelhead trumps conservation. My view and perspective differ, either there's a conservation concern or not. If there is the shut down the steelhead fishery. What I get out of your response is remove a generations old tradition, culture and harvest for food value while touting "conservation concern" as a defense, however when it comes to increased exploitation of wild steelhead by commercial interests, added rod days, extended steelhead guiding periods, $$$$$.... you have no issue. There's a word for that Hypocrite!

There are lots of problems with the existing fishing going on in the skeena system re: guiding and rod days and etc. That's not the issue here. The fact is managing something on an 'all or nothing approach' isn't realistic in any scenario. This is the exact same thing the crazy leftie eco hippies say about the tar sands. They want it all shut down because some of it is really bad. Well, you can't just shut everything down because there's a concern with a small part of it. But at the same time it's idiotic to operate at the other end of the spectrum with a free for all because that tips the system into a negative result - every time. C&R angling poses very little risk to any fish population unless they reach severe conservation concerns such as the levels in the Thompson.

And from an entirely non fact based esoteric point of view, what's wrong with having a place in the world where we try not to kill our fair share of everything??? Why do the skeena region BCWF members want this so bad? Why do they feel so entitled to a fishery that's only 50 years old and hasn't existed for the last decade? Give it up already. You don't have to kill everything that moves just because it's there. Catch the fish, love it for what it is, and put it back to make more.

[darrin6109]

"And from an entirely non fact based esoteric point of view, what's wrong with having a place in the world where we try not to kill our fair share of everything??? Why do the skeena region BCWF members want this so bad? Why do they feel so entitled to a fishery that's only 50 years old and hasn't existed for the last decade? Give it up already. You don't have to kill everything that moves just because it's there. Catch the fish, love it for what it is, and put it back to make more."


I COULDNT AGREE MORE!

[lange1212]

ArticRed the resident steelhead fishery in the Skeena is much older than 50 years. Personally my family has been a part of the steelhead fishery for approaching a 90 years. I know some Skeena families that go well beyond that. There is a generations old resident angler culture and tradition that revolves around our Skeena fishery, and yes is much older than 50 years.

What's being asked for is a "limited" retention opportunity for resident anglers on the Skeena sysytem. This is not a free for all request, but one many feel is again sustainable and believe feathering in this opportunity now has merit based on best available science and status of Skeena steelhead populations. What I find most confusing is the angst against such an approach, but no concern or objection to the wasteful mortality caused by a C&R fishery. A dead stelhead is a dead steelhead. Not opposed to C&R but it is very much felt that having a retention opportunity allowing for motally wounded fish to be fully utilized is both respectful of the species and shines of good ethics.

It is also important to note that there are many stakeholders many with differing values, traditions and culture whereby they view and utilize our fisheries differntly. Management of our fisheries has to consider the overall angling community not just a select few. What I'm saying is this needs to be inclusive of harvest opportunities where sustainable, and respect the priority of those who call BC home.

I find hypocitical that you critisize the desire of many that wish to have a resident retention opportunity restored (fish for food) and ask me why I feel so entitled. My question to you is why do you feel so entitle to have a C&R fishery only when a sustainable harvest has merit and can occur?

[Eastbranch]

First off, claims of tracing roots back to the skeena before 1940 usually don't hold up to the light of day and if they do, they are an insignificant minority. Steelhead fishing in the Skeena region started essentially with Fenelly. Until that time, no 'tradition' existed in steelhead sport fishing north of vancouver island and it certainly wasn't anything approaching well known until the Kispiox became famous in the 50s. That's fact. It's interesting to note that most people, like Bob Clay, who actually have a history and tradition on the river, have realized the error of killing steelhead and that they did have a strong negative effect on the populations, particularly wiping out the 30lb'ers of the Kispiox, in the 70s and 80s.

Second, I have no faith in the idea that the average angler can identify a fish that may succumb to handling mortality and one that won't. That is something that even experienced fish scientists will make no claim on nine times of ten. While the idea you are putting forward is nice in theory, it would never hold water in a realistic application, everyone knows the (local people) gongshows that happen at the lower skeena bars and at the meat holes on the skeena and blkley.

I think you are confusing the select few and the majority. The majority want a C&R fishery, and only a handful of people want a kill fishery. As usual, the squeaky wheel is heard the loudest and most often. It is no surprise that the BCWF squeaks the loudest about having their opportunity to kill things. It's actually quite sad to me to see the banner I grew up under being misused this way by its membership. The BCWF used to really mean something and it used to have people in it who believed in sustainability.

Lastly, the tiring 'food' argument has zero validity because out of all skeena salmon, steelhead are probably the worst table fare and they are the least numerous.

[lange1212]

Your entitled to your opinion and I mine.

At the end of the day I hope decision makers don't get caught up in the retoric and base their decisons on best available science, not unsubstantiated ancedotal cliams.

We can point fingers back and forth getting know where. At they end of the day the indiscriminate decision must be based on the science, which I believe today supports feathering in a retention oportunity for BC resident anglers in the Skeena Region.

All the best in your angling endevours:)

End of debate

[Eastbranch]

No. Not end of debate. You and the BCWF don't get to arbitrarily decide when there's enough fish to start killing them. And you don't get to have your opinion if it's based on untruths and an incomplete knowledge of the variables at play. That's called being ignorant. Fortunately, it's curable if you're willing to open your mind to possibilities that aren't controlled by your own self interests. There *is* black and there *is* white, you don't get to believe in just black because you don't like white.

What are your qualifications to interpret the science? Unless it's something better than a highschool science class and 30 years of rod and gun club meetings, you're not going to make the cut. The public doesn't even have access to most of the information required to make the kind of assessment you and the BCWf are talking about. What happened to the era when the ministry biologists said something, and the BCWF listened respectfully? I want that back.

[TPK]

.. What happened to the era when the ministry biologists said something, and the BCWF listened respectfully? I want that back.

That went away when the Ministry stopped managing fish and wildlife and instead started managing hunters and anglers, it went away with the budget and staff cuts that no longer allowed them to make informed decisions based on facts and science, it went away when the ministry stopped doing what it was supposed to be doing. It went away when what was being said no longer made sense, when their own policies and procedures were not being followed. It went away when politics not science and biology became the guiding principle. It went away a long long time ago.

[Eastbranch]

You can vilify biologists and managers all you want, but it doesn't make you right.

[TPK]

You can vilify biologists and managers all you want, but it doesn't make you right.

If not them .. then who is to blame for the circumstances we are in today? You? Me? I assume that you (as do I) follow the rules for hunting and angling .. does that mean we're to blame for the issues we face today? I say it's the policies and the policy makers that got us here .. not the individuals trying to work within the systems guidlines. Yes, I recognize we all have the personal choice to hunt or fish so if we really don't agree with a hunt or fishery, we don't have to partake in it. Does that make us conservationists too?

[Eastbranch]

Do you understand the difference between the federal department of fisheries and oceans and the provincial ministry of forests and natural resource operations? Because it sure doesn't seem like it. It seems you haven't actually read or understood a word I've posted in the last six pages, so let me be clear: The reason for the lack of abundance of skeena summer run steelhead is because of the federal department of fisheries and oceans mismanagement of the commercial salmon fisheries.

Now that we have that out of the way, explain to me what action you think the provincial ministry of forests and natural resource operations has taken to negatively influence skeena summer run steelhead populations that you would like them to change.

If the BCWF wants to kill steelhead, they should be talking to the federal department of fisheries and oceans about curtailing or eliminating the commercial salmon fishery at the mouth of the skeena river. It's that simple.

[pro 111]

I always get a kick out of the guys that hammer stealhead all winter long and let them all go. Then they get pissed off at the guy who goes to get a fresh one to eat once in a while. The hard core catch and release guys kill way more stealhead than the average guy that wants one for the frying pan. If you really care about there numbers in the skeena , maybe try leaving them alone for about 10 years. That would also work well in the Charlottes where I live.

[steel_ram]

I always get a kick out of the guys that hammer stealhead all winter long and let them all go. Then they get pissed off at the guy who goes to get a fresh one to eat once in a while. The hard core catch and release guys kill way more stealhead than the average guy that wants one for the frying pan. If you really care about there numbers in the skeena , maybe try leaving them alone for about 10 years. That would also work well in the Charlottes where I live.

There may a smidgen of truth to your point, being that released fish do not have 100% survival, especially those handled by "yahoo's", but those relatively few fish caught in remote places have an incredible dollar value per fish, which is unfortunately what talks. The fish have a "voice", sort of speak because of the fishery. It would be easy for industry and government to ignore protecting something if no one cared.

[jetboat jim]

I always get a kick out of the guys that hammer stealhead all winter long and let them all go. Then they get pissed off at the guy who goes to get a fresh one to eat once in a while. The hard core catch and release guys kill way more stealhead than the average guy that wants one for the frying pan. If you really care about there numbers in the skeena , maybe try leaving them alone for about 10 years. That would also work well in the Charlottes where I live.

I have been involved in many studys and projects for BCCF and we have seen some fish caught and released over dozens of times, many recaptured the next year.............catch and release works and it creates angler awareness.

when you stop the angling you open the door to unseen acts.

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r163/jetboatjimmy/huntng006.jpg

[The Hermit]

Once more, it's interesting to see how you view things. If you wanted to only discuss the topic at hand, why would you try to insult me? Why not just deal with the topic? Instead, you go out of you way to do what you always do when someone has a differing opinion than you. If your position is strong, you don't need to try to make ad hominem comments, the position should support itself.

It's because of this trait that you lack credibility. Well, that and your incredibly high opinion of yourself, your incredibly low opinion of everyone else and your tendency to use inflammatory rhetoric to support your position ;)

BTW I was just rereading your hybrid thread, when you were posting as PGKris then as Tinney. It's some good humor. :)

Now it makes sense! ArcticRed - do you work for as an angling guide or for one in some fashion?

[Browningmirage]

I disagree with a wild steelhead harvest. If you want to eat steelhead, why not have one of the hatchery fish that are essentially produced for that reason. I understand that they are not only tasty, but dumb and easy to catch as well. Perfect for anyone (blind to logic) that wants a wild steelhead harvest...

C+R is not perfect, but 1/20 dead is better than 20/20 dead. the other 19 can be caught again and can (and will) spawn following multiple captures. Not to even bring into account the arbitrary anthropocentric conditions people place on the fish they decide to keep (nice colour, good condition, etc)...All others released, even though poorer condition fish can be more of a detriment to the population than a benefit.

[40incher]

I personally can't wait 'til the anti's go after the steelhead wound fishery. To run around and harass countless fish, and then say they are endangered when someone wants to eat just one, is a joke.

There's no steelhead like smoked steelhead.

[Caribou_lou]

Can't wait for a Steelhead harvest... Then I can put that Steelhead tag they force me to buy to good use!

[steel_ram]

The way things are going, 20 years from now the majority of us will be shouldering for spots to fish goldfish, like they do in Britain. But hey, we payed for a license so we gotta kill something.

[jetboat jim]

soo many greedy people out there............."I paid for it -now I want something"..............In my hand (at any cost)
So many posts from people who have never done anything to help the fish and know sweet f all about the conservation of steelhead.............but they can type.

[Old Crow]

soo many greedy people out there............."I paid for it -now I want something"..............In my hand (at any cost)
So many posts from people who have never done anything to help the fish and know sweet f all about the conservation of steelhead.............but they can type.

Amen..you ugly *******

[Salty]

Amen..you ugly *******

Awesome post. Great thread, what's it about anyways? :confused:

[Caribou_lou]

soo many greedy people out there............."I paid for it -now I want something"..............In my hand (at any cost)
So many posts from people who have never done anything to help the fish and know sweet f all about the conservation of steelhead.............but they can type.

So are you trying to tell me that going out and harassing these supposedly "endangered" fish is helping the population??

[The Dude]

Awesome post. Great thread, what's it about anyways? :confused:

I think Steelhead are the Mountain Sheep of the anglers world.
That's what i get out of this thread, anyway :rolleyes:

[Caribou_lou]

I think Steelhead are the Mountain Sheep of the anglers world. That's what i get out of this thread, anyway :rolleyes:After the next election the steelhead will be the grizzly of the anglers world.
Lots out there but god forbid we take one home!

[steel_ram]

So are you trying to tell me that going out and harassing these supposedly "endangered" fish is helping the population??

Sadly, the fact is they, like other wildlife throughout the world have to have some dollar value to be protected. There is a demand for the minimal impact catch and release fishery and it is worth big bucks. I don't see why delberately killing one is so important. I guess it's some peoples only measure of success? Sad.

[GoatGuy]

Funny discussion.

If the long-term goals are achievable with a limited catch and kill so be it, if not then no catch and kill. If the problem is so big, close it. The sliding scale applies.

Proper funding, problem identification, solutions identification/implementation, monitoring are the real problems.

Unfortunately, we'll never get there because you still have people fighting for their fishing style - it's pretty blatant, even for the 'fish degree guy'. Steelhead conservation needs to become the priority and then things like catch and kill should come easily, maybe even with a rational discussion. Identify a goal, work towards it and make it happen. Unfortunately, you're going to find people running interference on the big problem, because they're worried about their little problem.

The ease of which we can ignore the application of the scientific method to wildlife management in favour of casual observations, social desires and rhetoric while becoming a purveyor of intellect and a master of experience as applied to fisheries is predictable, I suppose. You get people meshing their beliefs with science when it suits them, and ignoring it when it doesn't all the time................

The story of fish and wildlife management in BC.

[Caribou_lou]

I don't see why delberately killing one is so important. I guess it's some peoples only measure of success? Sad.

Sorry but you have it all wrong... Believe it or not I go out hunting and fishing to put food on the table. Anything wrong with that?? What I do see being wrong is that we have a sustainable fishery here but im forced to release every one I catch to cater to some yanks!

[The Dude]

Funny, if there's a sustainable population, I don't put Elk back, either. :?

[dryflyguy57]

Fly only , non retention .

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Funny discussion.

If the long-term goals are achievable with a limited catch and kill so be it, if not then no catch and kill. If the problem is so big, close it. The sliding scale applies.

Proper funding, problem identification, solutions identification/implementation, monitoring are the real problems.

Unfortunately, we'll never get there because you still have people fighting for their fishing style - it's pretty blatant, even for the 'fish degree guy'. Steelhead conservation needs to become the priority and then things like catch and kill should come easily, maybe even with a rational discussion. Identify a goal, work towards it and make it happen. Unfortunately, you're going to find people running interference on the big problem, because they're worried about their little problem.

The ease of which we can ignore the application of the scientific method to wildlife management in favour of casual observations, social desires and rhetoric while becoming a purveyor of intellect and a master of experience as applied to fisheries is predictable, I suppose. You get people meshing their beliefs with science when it suits them, and ignoring it when it doesn't all the time................

The story of fish and wildlife management in BC.


dryflyguy[/U]57;1208107]Fly only , non retention .

Why stop there? How about dry flies only?

Yep, pretty blatant alright.:roll:

SSS

[coach]

Fly only , non retention .

Hmmm.. While we're at it, maybe ban fly fishers from trolling..

[GoatGuy]

I for one, am so glad that a wild steelhead kill fishery is so far beyond preposterous that it will never see the light of day. Be satisfied with your four salmon a day in the Skeena and say your welcome to your grand kids when they thank you for not killing steelhead.

Same stance people have taken on the T - hasn't exactly been effective.

Just leave it alone and everything will be OK only works if you believe someone with a magic wand will step in and take control.

[Gateholio]

Funny discussion.

If the long-term goals are achievable with a limited catch and kill so be it, if not then no catch and kill. If the problem is so big, close it. The sliding scale applies.

Proper funding, problem identification, solutions identification/implementation, monitoring are the real problems.

Unfortunately, we'll never get there because you still have people fighting for their fishing style - it's pretty blatant, even for the 'fish degree guy'. Steelhead conservation needs to become the priority and then things like catch and kill should come easily, maybe even with a rational discussion. Identify a goal, work towards it and make it happen. Unfortunately, you're going to find people running interference on the big problem, because they're worried about their little problem.

The ease of which we can ignore the application of the scientific method to wildlife management in favour of casual observations, social desires and rhetoric while becoming a purveyor of intellect and a master of experience as applied to fisheries is predictable, I suppose. You get people meshing their beliefs with science when it suits them, and ignoring it when it doesn't all the time................

The story of fish and wildlife management in BC.

And that's what is so ironic. The steelhead champions should be working towards a sustainable steelhead retention fishery. Because if there we have enough that we can kill a few, then there are plenty to catch and release too.

Instead we have those that want to keep the status quo because it is their particular interest.

[GoatGuy]

And that's what is so ironic. The steelhead champions should be working towards a sustainable steelhead retention fishery. Because if there we have enough that we can kill a few, then there are plenty to catch and release too.

Instead we have those that want to keep the status quo because it is their particular interest.

And across most of the province we've watched things dwindle since limits were reduced, and then C&R was introduced. When you look back at the litt in the 60s and 70s it's always been that way. A couple people fighting for their style of fishing, change the regulations to no avail, and no one fighting for more fish.

By and large the fish populations have had all the glide properties of a lawn dart.

Seems my friend with all the 'experience' has missed the value of intelligence; when intelligence is lacking education becomes meaningless.

[steel_ram]

Maybe I miss your point, but are you suggesting increased limits, C &R have negatively effected fish populations? I'm pretty certain that those regs, and even more restrictive ones have been put in place to at least maintain a fishery of some sort, to keep the "sports fishery" alive. Dwindling numbers are no doubt caused from a number of serious problems, from wreckless logging, mining practises, run of river hydro projects, to environmental problems at sea and then getting wacked by indescriminate commercial salmon fisheries.

I'd like to see more fish but not by plugging in hatcheries. More fish to natural levels by habitat restoration.

I am only for limiting sportsmans equipment to less productive methods, such as fly only for steelhead or bows only for hunting when the alternate is no season. Anyone can participate. It just takes a little more effort.;)

[jetboat jim]

So are you trying to tell me that going out and harassing these supposedly "endangered" fish is helping the population??

If I did not angle for these fish I may have not put in 24 years of volenteer conservatation efforts , and hundreds of hours each year helping the fish...........small price so i can sleep at night.

wish others would jump in and help, but I do think its a losing battle and at this point in my life I have thrown in the towl for now.

I have caught several poachers while I have been harassing these "endangered" fish................so helping them yes !

how about you............do you protect them from behind the keyboard ?

[dryflyguy57]

Thats right SSS , my blatant point of view . Whats yours or are you just quoting these days ? Do you like roe , spoons , dry flies , kill fishery ?

[dryflyguy57]

Hmmm.. While we're at it, maybe ban fly fishers from trolling..
Already flyfishing only on the upper Morice River . Do you disagree with that ? Don't think many flyfishers would give a rats ass if they trolled again . The guided spoon fishery on the Copper is bad enough .

[GoatGuy]

Maybe I miss your point, but are you suggesting increased limits, C &R have negatively effected fish populations? I'm pretty certain that those regs, and even more restrictive ones have been put in place to at least maintain a fishery of some sort, to keep the "sports fishery" alive. Dwindling numbers are no doubt caused from a number of serious problems, from wreckless logging, mining practises, run of river hydro projects, to environmental problems at sea and then getting wacked by indescriminate commercial salmon fisheries.

I'd like to see more fish but not by plugging in hatcheries. More fish to natural levels by habitat restoration.

I am only for limiting sportsmans equipment to less productive methods, such as fly only for steelhead or bows only for hunting when the alternate is no season. Anyone can participate. It just takes a little more effort.;)

In many cases steelhead populations continued to decline well after anglers were limited and c&r was instituted.

While everybody's fighting over trivial stuff, the big stuff is being ignored. The goal has never been focused on steelhead, it's been focused on angling methods and it hasn't worked.

Whether the death is quick and efficient or long and drawn out dead is dead. Steelhead are a great example of angler management at the expense of entire fish populations.

Guess its about asking the right questions.

[coach]

Already flyfishing only on the upper Morice River . Do you disagree with that ? Don't think many flyfishers would give a rats ass if they trolled again . The guided spoon fishery on the Copper is bad enough .

Are you reading anything that GG had talked about? There was great debate over angling methods on the Thompson about ten years ago. Flyfishers went out of their way to paint roe and spoon fishers as the cause of steelhead declines. In the meantime, logging, cattle ranching, native fisheries, commercial fisheries and a great number of other factors pushed a great fishery to the brink of extinction. Do you want to look at the big picture or fight other people with similar interests to yours over what's left?

Shouldn't we all want steelhead numbers to return to the point where populations are stable enough to withstand a minimal harvest fishery? Would it not be the definition of hypocrisy for the BCWF to declare one species off limits no matter how healthy the population? Would you support the BCWF if they suddenly decided wolves or grizzlies needed protection against any type of hunting regardless of science?

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Thats right SSS , my blatant point of view . Whats yours or are you just quoting these days ? Do you like roe , spoons , dry flies , kill fishery ?


Only flyfishing gear in my closet...but I'm not out to push my personal preferance down anyone elses throat.

Let's focus on the fish.

SSS

[SPEYMAN]

If and when there are adequete numbers of wild steelhead to support a harvest of wild fish,then we can look at that issue.At present there are no systems that have those numbers.C&R is the only way I and others can continue to participate in a fishery I have enjoyed for 50 plus years and wish to continue doing until I am unable to do so.

[dryflyguy57]

Only flyfishing gear in my closet...but I'm not out to push my personal preferance down anyone elses throat.

Let's focus on the fish.

SSS
Certainly not pushing it down anyones throat like as the BCWF is doing . Just stating what I think is best for THAT fishery . Do you participate in that fishery and know the local issues , overcrowding , illegal guiding , lack of enforcement , unchecked nets under the Skeena bridge , etc . ? Some here are just towing the party line for the FED as far as I am concerned .

[steel_ram]

Why is killing one fish so important? I could see some interesting difficulties in enforcing a single fish bag limit, besides, by current regs. your done for the day fishing as soon as you kill your limit, or do you get your kid, wife to tag the fish. Maybe I'm weird, but I've often thought the kill was kind of the anti-climax of fishing and hunting. Wish I could've given a few dead bear a kick in the butt and have them run off, would have saved me a lot of hassle.

[lorneparker1]

Certainly not pushing it down anyones throat like as the BCWF is doing . Just stating what I think is best for THAT fishery . Do you participate in that fishery and know the local issues , overcrowding , illegal guiding , lack of enforcement , unchecked nets under the Skeena bridge , etc . ? Some here are just towing the party line for the FED as far as I am concerned .

You are the type that give fly fisherman a bad name. THe snobs of the fishing world. YOu angling method does not improve a fishery any more then a native chucking a sparkplug and a treble. Goat guy has hit the nail right on the head,.

Lorne

[dryflyguy57]

Thanks for all the kind words . Are you a FED director ? Sticking to my point of view and if you don't like it , tooo bad don't read it .

[GoatGuy]

Certainly not pushing it down anyones throat like as the BCWF is doing . Just stating what I think is best for THAT fishery . Do you participate in that fishery and know the local issues , overcrowding , illegal guiding , lack of enforcement , unchecked nets under the Skeena bridge , etc . ? Some here are just towing the party line for the FED as far as I am concerned .
"Overcrowding" sums it up. You're looking at these fish as an angler management fishery not from the perspective of fishery management.

Your posts are about how, and when people should fish, not what is best for the fish. No forward looking objectives; you might not, however recognize it as such. People often confuse conservation with their own personal interests.

[Walking Buffalo]

Funny discussion.

If the long-term goals are achievable with a limited catch and kill so be it, if not then no catch and kill. If the problem is so big, close it. The sliding scale applies.

Proper funding, problem identification, solutions identification/implementation, monitoring are the real problems.

Unfortunately, we'll never get there because you still have people fighting for their fishing style - it's pretty blatant, even for the 'fish degree guy'. Steelhead conservation needs to become the priority and then things like catch and kill should come easily, maybe even with a rational discussion. Identify a goal, work towards it and make it happen. Unfortunately, you're going to find people running interference on the big problem, because they're worried about their little problem.

The ease of which we can ignore the application of the scientific method to wildlife management in favour of casual observations, social desires and rhetoric while becoming a purveyor of intellect and a master of experience as applied to fisheries is predictable, I suppose. You get people meshing their beliefs with science when it suits them, and ignoring it when it doesn't all the time................

The story of fish and wildlife management in BC.



I figured my short reply early in this thread was too simple for some nieve people to see the long term need to maintain Harvestable populations of wildlife, and to maintain the harvest of Wildlife.


The BCWF and all BC residents should NEVER give up in trying to establish and maintain Wild Steelhead populations that can sustain a harvest.

Why is this hard to understand?


Thanks GG, for taking the time to explain these management principles.


Do you guys get it now?

[Surrey Boy]

You are the type that give fly fisherman a bad name. THe snobs of the fishing world. YOu angling method does not improve a fishery any more then a native chucking a sparkplug and a treble. Goat guy has hit the nail right on the head,.

Lorne


LOL! I love you guys.

[Eastbranch]

You are the type that give fly fisherman a bad name. THe snobs of the fishing world. YOu angling method does not improve a fishery any more then a native chucking a sparkplug and a treble. Goat guy has hit the nail right on the head,.

Lorne

Read: http://nativefishsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Hooking-Mortality-Steelhead-2001.pdf

Review your position. Accept that there is a sliding scale of risk associated with gear type. Become enlightened. Move on.

Jesse, your bullshit sliding scale has two positions. Zero fishing, or a balls to the wall kill fishery. Stick to harassing sheep in planes and leave fish mgmt to people who have some appreciation for where we've been and where we can't go back to.

Comparison to the thompson is BS, the management in region 3 has consistently proven themselves worthless and helpless to work on solutions to save T steelhead. This fall, when 300 fish come back, they will be in the RMZ, and that will still allow a bait fishery that is outdated and frankly a disgusting black mark on BC's fish management branch.

[jetboat jim]

Read: http://nativefishsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Hooking-Mortality-Steelhead-2001.pdf

Review your position. Accept that there is a sliding scale of risk associated with gear type. Become enlightened. Move on.

Jesse, your bullshit sliding scale has two positions. Zero fishing, or a balls to the wall kill fishery. Stick to harassing sheep in planes and leave fish mgmt to people who have some appreciation for where we've been and where we can't go back to.

Comparison to the thompson is BS, the management in region 3 has consistently proven themselves worthless and helpless to work on solutions to save T steelhead. This fall, when 300 fish come back, they will be in the RMZ, and that will still allow a bait fishery that is outdated and frankly a disgusting black mark on BC's fish management branch.
the last opening on the T i spoke with R bison (he was doing creel sensus) and the numbers i gave him were I caught 50% of the fish for that week...............i was using a flyrod.

how about all the unemployed guides that chum off the locals in town and beat those fish well up to the closing date (dec 31) with t-14 and lead eyed jigs ?....................the river needs friends , not lines drawn in the sand.

[GoatGuy]

Read: http://nativefishsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Hooking-Mortality-Steelhead-2001.pdf

Review your position. Accept that there is a sliding scale of risk associated with gear type. Become enlightened. Move on.

Jesse, your bullshit sliding scale has two positions. Zero fishing, or a balls to the wall kill fishery. Stick to harassing sheep in planes and leave fish mgmt to people who have some appreciation for where we've been and where we can't go back to.

Comparison to the thompson is BS, the management in region 3 has consistently proven themselves worthless and helpless to work on solutions to save T steelhead. This fall, when 300 fish come back, they will be in the RMZ, and that will still allow a bait fishery that is outdated and frankly a disgusting black mark on BC's fish management branch.
The strident drama queen approach to fisheries management is unfortunate and adds little value to the future of steelhead moving forward. When looking back at the litterature from the 60s/70s this approach was common and the results poor. Little positive substantive change.

For advice on fisheries management I'll stick with the professionals I know well, current and past fisheries employees, provincial fisheries managers, and provincial fish and wildlife directors. People with decades of experience, masters/PhDs, and real world hands on experience dealing with people and fish. Oddly, you refer to 'we', as an unknown.

The difference between intelligence and education is evident. The effects of this approach are evident.