|
Having several discussions with a friend of mine who used to post regularly on this board brought about a very sensitive management subject/opinion that many or some many have that I am looking for those of you who use this board to address. The issue is Steelhead and Sea Run cutthroat and other anadronomous populations of fish (such as Dollies and Sea run Browns). In your opinion, do you think that the Feds can better manage Steelhead populations in rivers? Would their be more continuity amongst mangement and easier policy adjustment if one or the other managed? It seems to be the opinion of a frined of mine that the MELP managing Steelhead is the worst thing that happened to Steelhead, not neccessarily because they don't know how to manage them, but because way things work. For instance more attention might be brought about to Steelhead if the Feds managed it and things could be easier to work with. The Feds would consider Coquihalla and Silverhope Steelhead populations before opening a Sockeye Gill net fishery. Things to those affect. Does anyone have any opinions to offer regarding the matter? STeve/Cal, what are your opinions regarding the matter and where would BCFDF stand on this matter? Would it not be easier to work with one governing body instead of two? Would there not be more continuity? also regulatons might be a lot clearer because Salmon and Steelhead/trout in coastal/anadronomous waters would appear on the same synopsis. Let the Feds govern the watersheds with access to the ocean and the Provincial guys govern everything else. Scott
|
|
<7949&page=8/1058">
Your friend may have a point. However if DFO managed steelhead etc it follows they would manage them more along the lines they have managed the more numerous salmonids. The major negative being there wouldn't have been an emphasis on preserving the gene pool of wild fish as we've seen with MELP's management. I'd bet that through the 70's 80's and into the 90's DFO would have emphasized artificial boosting of steelhead populations in waters like the Coq, the Silverhope, the Thompson and the Skeena drainage. They likely wouldn't even rely on native stocks to do that - rather they'd just have thrown in large quantities of Stamp River summer runs for example to get back a couple thousand fish in the Coq' etc. And we'd be left with the same cookie cutter fish through out the Province much like they have in Washington and Oregon were they are desperately trying to re-establish wild stocks. On the other hand - we'd likely see fewer restrictions on tackle. That would appeal to some. It has less appeal to me. The Feds generally don't favour one form over the other but then again they are far more willing to close rivers then MELP. So many rivers with small wild runs simply wouldn't be open to fishing. If you ask me MELP has done a pretty good job over the last 20 years with a very limited budget. At least they preserved our heritage of wild fish to some extent. Rivers like the Stamp, Vedder etc have been polluted by hatcheries. I think DFO has bungled big time. What's worse they've lost control of the fishery and are getting pulled like taffy by a variety of lobby groups. Many of their decisions don't make sense. often they are clearly prejudicial. Sometimes they can't even enforce the law.
|
|
Ralph, I think you erred in one of your comments though. You are forgetting that a lot of the biologists in the DFO have some kind of expiereince with Steelhead in their past. I can name one if you'd like an example. Salmon in general return in larger numbers than Steelhead do. So there is a lot more leeway for gene pools and what not. Regardless of what methods they use, both the Prov and Fed fellas will still rear their managed fish the same in a hatchery enviroment IE to smolt so they do not impact Wild stocks. This is how it works with Coho and Steelhead. There are still hatchery fish that are weakend and domesticated by their stay at the hatchery and things to that effect who knows if numbers would be different, I can't tell you that, but I think the Feds and Prov guys have evolved together to where we have sound hatchey practices where the fish will be released in such a way as so we do not effect the wild salmon/steelhead in a stream. I can also give you past reports on rivers that will show the feds recommended targets for Hatchery supplementation IE the Indian River. They talked about a Hatchery pilot project on the Indian (which only went on for one year) where they'd rear large numbers of Chinook and Coho. They'd also rear large numbers of Chum and Pinks and the Steelhead quotas which they listed were very small (like 10,000 smolts) which wouldn't do much. I liked your comments about the Gear types. Quite Frankly, the DFO does have the power to make gear type decisions to manage anadronmous salmon fisheries. Since they are doing creel surveys, they would probably do them for Steelhead do. The proof is in the pudding, and the DFO has the power from angler effort of various gear types to make management gear type decisions. If any organization wants to go against this, what basis would they have for that? As for the DFO losing control of the fishery, with the limited resources they have, they have to pay attention to the largest threats to the resource first. I think we should show some support for these fellas and ask for more support for them/more funds. Scott
|
|
I think it would be for the best if they transferred salmon under provincial jurisdiction along with steelhead. Give someone else a chance to screw it up, they've had theirs.
|
|
Dfo gets a lot more support and funding than our local guys, and I think the local guys do a better job. In my part of the province the local guys are big on having volunteers helping them out. We get a lot more stuff done. I'm curious, does DFO get volunteers out to help?
|
|
I believe the DFO officers in BC are a good group and are serious about our resources. However, being controlled by eastern influences, who are not here to witness our environment first hand, cannot work for the best. Having our rules set by provincial guys is better, but I feel regional control is best if it was given a chance. Policy makers who don't witness situations first hand, should not make the calls. I speak without full knowledge of this subject; just word of mouth and some reading, so correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
Scott it's
true most hatchery steelhead are raised in DFO facilities. That cooperation
is admirable. But the policy is set by MELP, so the provincal boys get
the credit for the most innovative enhancement programs in the world -
programs they are now copying in the US where they all but squandered
their wild salmon heritage. Even among coho and chinook we have a huge
wild resource left but the fact of the matter is when the SEP was adopted
the emphasis was put on a quick political fix. So chum salmon and sockeye
were super enhanced because it was cheap and the return dependable. Long
term we'd get better results from stream protection and enhancement.
How about federal money to restore natural water levels to the Cheakamus?
Who remembers that river supported a million or more spawning pinks every
odd year?
|
|
My Opinion only Scott....I cant speak on something for the Federation unless we have already a "stated policy" If you let the guys that know what they are doing, do their collective jobs, and keep the ministers and some of the middle level beurocrats out of it, the way it works now would be great. Both levels of Government have some Excellent field level guys that have dedicated their lives to making the fisheries thrive. Problems are when it goes up hill...There are some decent beurocrats too, that really seem to be on the right page. But somewhere along the road from River to Minister, it gets so screwed up that neither one of the agencies are any effective in the long run. There is some new stuff coming in the near future that will really get this chat thread flying when announced. I am meeting with MELP officials soon on it, and when I can I will fill you all in. Ralph as for the Cheakamus River, that is out of the feds hands, and NOW where it belongs, in the hands of a Water Use Planning group, that will definately secure more water for that river. It is Mandated to BC Hydro that all Hydro Electric Projects on Fish Bearing streams go to Water Use Planning. I personally sit on the WUP for the Coquitlam/Buntzen watershed, representing anglers on behalf of the BCFDF. The decision we have to make are complex and effect many different groups. DFO, MELP, Local SEP groups, First Nations, Local residents, enviromental groups etc etc are all represented at these Committees. I can assure you that the net benefit will be water for the fish, at the cost of power. Hats off to BC Hydro, and the provincial agencies that mandated Hydro to do these WUP's. Examples of completed WUP's are the Alouette, and the Stave rivers. I think there are 30 to be done.
|
|
Thanks for the notes fellas. Do you think that maybe there are some issues where the Feds and Prov guys could "bond" a little more on though? Such as the commercial Sockeye/versus Summer Steelhead issue? I mean it didn't take screwed Summer Steelhead runs to shut down Sockeye fisheries, it took Coho which are under the jurisdiction of the Feds, to do it, and it appears as of the STeelhead are benefitting 10 fold, especially on the Skeena for the most part. Cal, I think you do have a great point about that. To add...if these guys who are doing their jobs, could also have a little more money to work with/resources, they could do an even better job. Until then, organizations and volunteers will have to pick up the slack, raise funds and things to that effect to successfully restore habitat and later on fisheries. I hear about the resources they have on the Thompson such as electric fish counting fences, and I can only wish for something like that on Every river with Steelhead returns. I wish a tagging study could be done on every river, so we learn the best management strategies during particular periods. I will say this though, the Fed biologists do think about Steelhead when they make decisions such as optimal release sites for Salmon. The Seymour Rivers biologist plans chum and pink releases in places that would hopefully help out/benefit Cutthroat/Steelhead Kelts. Maybe its just a personal thing since I recall this particular biologist having a fascination with wanting to See a Seymour Summer run during one of our broodstock seines when we were mainly dealing with Coho and the Very odd Summer run. I guess I would like to see more working together on issues, what do you guys think?
|
|
fed or provincial whats the difference 150 years ago there wasnt a problem with salmon/steelhead/trout why? go figure it out. it is inevitable...steelhead will be extinct in 50 years and salmon maybe in 100. why? u tell me.
|
|
I wish Rain was well on his way to extinction. With profound questions like the one above I can see it won't be long.
|
|
Cal: As far as the Cheakamus I was thinking that as salmon are a federal responsibility it strikes me that a good enhancement project would be for the Feds to compensate BC Hydro for lost revenue from increased spills from Daisy Lake. I know that's pie in the sky but consider... The province makes similar contributions to the operation of salmonid enhancement activities throughout the province that are properly the responsibility of the Fed's. The ALLCO Hatchery on the Alouette is a specific example. The Province funds all the staffing for that operation and provides the land. The Federal contribtion is relatively small and hasn't increased for many years.
|
|
tell me why the retention for hatchery coho is 4 while it's 2 for chum. makes no sense to me. all i can conclude from that is that it buys votes. people want to eat coho and not chum so it doesnt matter what their relative numbers are. tell me why at some fisheries you can retain salmon at the mouth where it's considered tidal and no retention beyond a boundary? it's the same water! fed or provincial, with the regs that they dream up what difference does it make?
|