BC Fishing Reports banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,544 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey guys,

Just wondering peoples thoughts on limits. As a 98% CnR guy, I have always thought limits are too high. For example, 4 hatchery coho/day (2 over 35cm)plus 2 chum and 1 chinook.

I always say "WTF do you do with all that fish?" I went on a charter august 2007 and I STILL have meat from the 25lb spring I caught.
I guess you could say I don't eat all that much fish...but still.

2 boots should do you for a long time. then there's guys that keep this every weekend....
AT LEAST there is a 10/year limit on chinook. Do people even abide to that? seems like an easy one to skip out on...

Should they be lowered?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
121 Posts
You should re-read the regs.

You're allowed 4 salmon today, which can be a mix of species. but not totaling over 4 coho, 2 chum, 1 adult chinook.

There are far far far bigger concerns that the take of sport (and I use the term loosely) fishermen (and I use that one loosely too)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
886 Posts
Shane said:
Depends on teh flow youre fishing, I say 4 chum per day on the chedder, maybe less coho.
If it wasn't for the chum in that river there would be no fish in that system. Large returns of chum that spawn and die = more nutrients = more insects = greater selection of food for fry IE steelhead, coho and chinook = larger and stronger smolts = better chance of survival for the transition into salt water. So 4 chum per day I do not agree with. I don't agree with any retention of chum in fresh water. That is just my opinion, which means f$%# all. As for the coho on the Vedder I do agree with 4 a day. After all they are hatchery fish. The average fisher person that heads out there will not catch there 4 fish limit and if they do cheers too them....

As for this Thread entitled current limits...I have been voicing for a change in salmon limits for sometime now... Combine salt and freshwater limits. 20 fish a year with a yearly limit on steelhead and chinook included in the combination.... Its not all about the Commercial and First Nations fisheries making a change but in my opinion the sportfishers also have to make a change to help and save the salmon and steelhead... :cheers: sage
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,468 Posts
sage2106lb said:
Shane said:
Depends on teh flow youre fishing, I say 4 chum per day on the chedder, maybe less coho.
If it wasn't for the chum in that river there would be no fish in that system. Large returns of chum that spawn and die = more nutrients = more insects = greater selection of food for fry IE steelhead, coho and chinook = larger and stronger smolts = better chance of survival for the transition into salt water. So 4 chum per day I do not agree with. I don't agree with any retention of chum in fresh water. That is just my opinion, which means f$%# all. As for the coho on the Vedder I do agree with 4 a day. After all they are hatchery fish. The average fisher person that heads out there will not catch there 4 fish limit and if they do cheers too them....

As for this Thread entitled current limits...I have been voicing for a change in salmon limits for sometime now... Combine salt and freshwater limits. 20 fish a year with a yearly limit on steelhead and chinook included in the combination.... Its not all about the Commercial and First Nations fisheries making a change but in my opinion the sportfishers also have to make a change to help and save the salmon and steelhead... :cheers: sage
With chum being more of a lower river spawning fish, how much of an impact do their nutrients really have on the whole system?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,736 Posts
well thousands will make it into the upper, and then die, and the steelhead smolts which stay in the river stick around the top for a while, and then move down to the lower later on, once again where thousands of chum die, and they fatten up on the bugs in the lower and canal, and then they head out into the fraser and then the pacific. So basically they make a HUGE difference on how much weight the smolts can put on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
886 Posts
Shane said:
sage2106lb said:
Shane said:
Depends on teh flow youre fishing, I say 4 chum per day on the chedder, maybe less coho.
If it wasn't for the chum in that river there would be no fish in that system. Large returns of chum that spawn and die = more nutrients = more insects = greater selection of food for fry IE steelhead, coho and chinook = larger and stronger smolts = better chance of survival for the transition into salt water. So 4 chum per day I do not agree with. I don't agree with any retention of chum in fresh water. That is just my opinion, which means f$%# all. As for the coho on the Vedder I do agree with 4 a day. After all they are hatchery fish. The average fisher person that heads out there will not catch there 4 fish limit and if they do cheers too them....

As for this Thread entitled current limits...I have been voicing for a change in salmon limits for sometime now... Combine salt and freshwater limits. 20 fish a year with a yearly limit on steelhead and chinook included in the combination.... Its not all about the Commercial and First Nations fisheries making a change but in my opinion the sportfishers also have to make a change to help and save the salmon and steelhead... :cheers: sage
With chum being more of a lower river spawning fish, how much of an impact do their nutrients really have on the whole system?
Shane start a new Tread on this topic and we will discuss this there and keep this tread on current limits. I will answer your question in a few days if it has not already been answered or if I can add more detailed information... :cheers: sage
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
bronjuan said:
Hey guys,

Just wondering peoples thoughts on limits. As a 98% CnR guy, I have always thought limits are too high. For example, 4 hatchery coho/day (2 over 35cm)plus 2 chum and 1 chinook... I always say "WTF do you do with all that fish?"

AT LEAST there is a 10/year limit on chinook. Do people even abide to that? seems like an easy one to skip out on...

Should they be lowered?
Hi Bronjuan - I don't think those limits need to be lowered, although there is a lot of distinction from stream to stream. Keep in mind that those hatchery fish are released with the intention of them being caught. I have no problems at all with bonking a hatchery coho (providing I ever catch one ::))...

That said, wild coho are in much more need of protection, so that's another matter entirely. As for the springs, 10/yr is a plenty big enough limit. I would imagine that most anglers do NOT keep their full 10 springs, but of course there are others who just do not record their springs and keep well over 10. I believe those poachers are probably a vast minority though.

It all comes down to enforcement. Should the limits be lowered? IMO, no, not for the cases you stated above. And keep in mind, as RI4B07 said, you can't keep "4 hatchery coho/day (2 over 35cm)plus 2 chum and 1 chinook."

Better have a closer look at the regs. ;)

Cheers,
:D
Tex
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,544 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Ok, I tend to ignore most of the limit stuff or not pay too much attention to it because I never keep anything. I pretty much just look whether its open/closed and what gear restrictions are on etc...just things pertinent to my ability to actually fish it.

But, you say you are happy to keep a hatchery fish and the wild need protecting. if you let that hatchery fish spawn, next year you'll have wild fish.

see where the problem is?

The reason why I brought this up, is that at the stave on sunday there was this group who were bonking and bagging a sick amount of fish. I could only imagine most of it freezer burning before it got consumed...or rot before it got home. Mentality of many is to bonk first, ask questions later. Bonk for the sake of keeping/showing it off to mom at home. bonk or be bonked. you get the idea.

I just think that if they lowered limits, perhaps people would wait for the keeper, and in turn, release more fish...perhaps being the last fish they hooked that day and then have to leave empty handed. This would help raise stocks since every mating pair will result in 4 returning on the next run ( I think I heard that about sockeye). Or I could just be full of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
bronjuan, I wonder if the group was the same group that I saw the other week at the vedder up at ranger run. They were bonking everything . Some really ugly fish were taken home. Thankfully from what I've seen these type of people seem to be in the minority,
Sam :peace:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
911 Posts
Bronj, You answered it. I do agree that hatchery coho and chum for that matter are raised to be caught in the sport fishery. That being said, when those quotas were put in place before there were such large crowds on the rivers (the Vedder and say the Stave) on a regular basis. There was still the bonk and bag ,but with this many more anglers on the river and the technique now being used the catchs are far more than past. With added strains to the runs from other causes why not limit the annual quota's to 10 for each spieces open to angling. that is say 50 fish per season using pinks and sock's as flex fillers average that out to say 8 lb per fish and that's over 400lb of fish. Instead of the four coho p/day why not knock it down to 1 over 50 and one under 50 for. again it would come down to enforcement of the regs as to the fact honesty to record them just would'nt happen. With the run sizes decreasing every year maybe this would be a step in the right direction and would show some of the other intrest groups that the sporties are taking steps to help.
Cheers,
Crazy D
It does make you wonder howmanby of those stave river tigers end up on the compost once they get home :mad:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
121 Posts
bronjuan said:
But, you say you are happy to keep a hatchery fish and the wild need protecting. if you let that hatchery fish spawn, next year you'll have wild fish.
There's no freaking way that a hatchery spawned fish and a wild fish are the same. There is very little natural selection when it comes to hatchery fish, which over time weakens the run. While hatcheries play a very important part in maintaining a good stock of wild fish, hatchery fish are there to die at the hands of fishermen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
limits are fine just those that chose to ignore the limits, and the way its going there will be ,few and fewer fish returning each year ,cause whats happening these days on the vedder and worse on the stave .with the more and more eastern europeans , having to bunk every fish they catch 98% snagged /flossed with 10 ft leaders .
its sickning seeing whats going there days . and the worse? not one fisheries officer to check them even when you called them . i am realy worried to the way the fish are being abused and a lack o enforcement.
it seems they have given up trying keep some control on the fishery. its afree for all out there , i have never been so discussed to what i am seeing this year. :cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
816 Posts
Every salmon should have yearly limit. And the on the licence there should be a provsion that you have to declare your catch on a secure DFO or MOE database.
If you kept only averagish head less fish with a 10 fish anual limit you'd have:
spring 15 x 10
chum 9 x 10
sock 5 x 10
coho 5 x 10
pink 2 x 10
steel + 4 x 10
300lb of salmon!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,544 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
There's no freaking way that a hatchery spawned fish and a wild fish are the same. There is very little natural selection when it comes to hatchery fish, which over time weakens the run. While hatcheries play a very important part in maintaining a good stock of wild fish, hatchery fish are there to die at the hands of fishermen.

so you think an "over population" of seals, netters, sea lice and pollution aren't strong selection pressures? I think it is a great feat for any fish to return to it's native river.

I would be surprised to find out that the genetic variability in stock salmon is actually THAT narrow as to cause a negative affect on the species as a whole. I agree that it does narrow the gene pool;however, you are taking genes from genetically successful individuals (have grown and returned to river for harvest) from many generations of gene recombination. The only time that a narrow gene pool will harm a species is if there is a NEW pressure for which a wide variety of genes allows a few individuals to survive.
That being said, if stock fish are returning given TODAYS pressures, that makes them genetically successful, and just as good as a "wild" species. Especially if they mate with another fish with different genes, who also returned SUCCESSFULLY.


:2cents:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Every salmon should have yearly limit. And the on the licence there should be a provsion that you have to declare your catch on a secure DFO or MOE database.
If you kept only averagish head less fish with a 10 fish anual limit you'd have:
spring 15 x 10
chum 9 x 10
sock 5 x 10
coho 5 x 10
pink 2 x 10
steel + 4 x 10
300lb of salmon!
I think yearly limits are harder to control now then they were even two years ago. Daily limit is all you can really control fairly well.

For example, I look at my license and see that I can retain 10 adult chinooks in one season. I can buy my license online and print it off. I can retain 10 chinook on that license. But I can also just print three copies and now my limit is 30. If I ever catch a chinook, I can mark it down and any DFO officer can check it and it will be fine. But they can't check if you printed out more than one copy if you filled up a previous one. At least before when you had to get it from a store, there is a 10 dollar fee to get a replacement license to deter this practice. Having an online database would work but if your intent is to abuse the system, you just wouldn't input it as its honor system. Am I completely wrong about this? Is there any way of telling if you are using multiple copies?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
455 Posts
When you print an online licence most people use inkjets, so when they get damp like your not near water! It smudges you need to reprint it as last week a CO told me if your name is not ledgable $$ you could be fined. Some people don't transfer the Bonked fish to new reprint. Has to be a better way.

FOCB :beerchug:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
455 Posts
snaggedaduck said:
Every salmon should have yearly limit. And the on the licence there should be a provsion that you have to declare your catch on a secure DFO or MOE database.
If you kept only averagish head less fish with a 10 fish anual limit you'd have:
spring 15 x 10
chum 9 x 10
sock 5 x 10
coho 5 x 10
pink 2 x 10
steel + 4 x 10
300lb of salmon!
I think yearly limits are harder to control now then they were even two years ago. Daily limit is all you can really control fairly well.

For example, I look at my license and see that I can retain 10 adult chinooks in one season. I can buy my license online and print it off. I can retain 10 chinook on that license. But I can also just print three copies and now my limit is 30. If I ever catch a chinook, I can mark it down and any DFO officer can check it and it will be fine. But they can't check if you printed out more than one copy if you filled up a previous one. At least before when you had to get it from a store, there is a 10 dollar fee to get a replacement license to deter this practice. Having an online database would work but if your intent is to abuse the system, you just wouldn't input it as its honor system. Am I completely wrong about this? Is there any way of telling if you are using multiple copies?

The store bought ones aren't recorded on computer so they don't have time to do a manual audit as this came up with the CO we talked to.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top