| Author |
Thread - Cutting the hatchery Steelhead from the Cowich ... |
|
Gibran
Member
Status:
offline
Posts: 24
From: Lk. Cowichan, British Columbia
Joined: Jan 8, 2010
|
|
Thread - Cutting the hatchery Steelhead from the Cowich ...
|
Post #1
|
It's sad to think that this will be the last year that clipped steelhead will return to the Cowichan river! The slashing of the hatchery steelhead program is nothing short of STUPID, I have written Barry Penner two letters in regaurds to this subject....of course he stands behind the Biloligist decision to cut it.
The problem is the way the smolts where being raised and re-leased, also the antics of the first nations down stream.
This river has gone from one of the premier sport fishing rivers on Van. Isl. to what now is a joke!!
There are more people tubing on this river in the summer time than there is salmon returning to it in the fall!!
Spearing returning salmon (Chinook, Coho, and Chums) which are on the verge of extinction (maybe not the Chums), when water conditions are so low their backs are exposed is asinine!
The province as been able to work with other bands in working out deals as so the hatcheries and first nation people work together for the future and success of a river to survie both a fist nation food fishery, and a healthy sport fishery. The Stamp and The Vedder are two of the best examples!! (Weird the Vedder is in Berry's home riding)
Iterducing pink salmon is not the solition either, yes I agree there will be some more life in the river and more oppertunities to sport fish.
However these fish are not native to this system, nor where Brown Truot by the way!!
They need to work on the natural fish returns to this system. Which are: Chinook, Coho, Chum, Steelhead, Rainbow, and Cutthroat!!
Anything else, and anthing less is the beging of the demise of this once great fish spawning system.
Lets remember a Pink salmon is no Steelhead, Coho, or Chinook. It's just an easy solution for DFO to add extra fish to a dying system, it's not fixing or even admitting that there is a serious problem with the future of this once great river!!
Both DFO and the Elders of the Cowichan river band need to wake up and address this soon, or all there will be left is a stupid tubbing industry on this great nutural resource, which is all of ours to enjoy.
Gibran.
|
|
|
01/13/2010 12:23PM
|
Join FishTactics.com to post a reply!
|
|
SmokeyRiver
Member
Status:
offline
Posts: 94
From: N/A
Joined: Dec 1, 2008
|
|
Thread - Cutting the hatchery Steelhead from the Cowich ...
|
Post #2
|
I very much agree with you that they should not cut the hatchery stocks in the rivers. I would rather have a few hatchery Steelhead in a river, spawning with others, hatches or wilds than no fish at all.
But I strongly disagree with you notion on the pinks. Adding pinks to a system DRASTICALLY improves the system. This is most likely NOT intended for the sport fishing opportunities, but rather the nutrients that these fish will bring to the river. THOUSANDS of pinks spawning and dying gives alot of food for the native trout, and for up and coming smolts, and pink salmon fry head to the ocean right after hatching and do not use any nutrients out of the system. So in short pinks gives alot and detract nothing except space.
I bet if they get a stable run of pinks you will see and start catching more trout. Also the biggest problem with Steelhead is that the smolts need places to stay, and lots of food, which pinks can provide. I agree the gov is trying to cover up, and maybe give an opportunity to catch fish but I fully back up the idea to introducing pinks to a system since they are very hardy fish that hep out every system they are in.
|
|
|
01/13/2010 12:51PM
|
Join FishTactics.com to post a reply!
|
|
Gibran
Member
Status:
offline
Posts: 24
From: Lk. Cowichan, British Columbia
Joined: Jan 8, 2010
|
|
Thread - Cutting the hatchery Steelhead from the Cowich ...
|
Post #3
|
I do agree with you, they do (Pink salmon) provide much needed nutrience to the system. That wasn't my ****, the problem is the NATIVE, (not introduced fish) runs of salmon and steelhead returning to this system are at an all time low, with the exception of Chums. Just by inroducing pinks to the river will not fix it. They need to work together with the First Nations and the hatchery to figure out why they can't bring the numbers back to what they where in the eighties.....There was a much larger kill in the salt water then as comercail and recreational fishing was at an all time high, so I don't buy that is part of the problem now!!
The problem is within the river escapement, and how what little numbers of fish that are returning are being met when they get in the system. Low water levels and water temp are playing a roll, but if we can't sport fish the system because of low returns, then the food fisherey should also take a brake as so that the fish have every chance they can to make it to the spawning grounds, until numbers can safely be return to even half of what they once where.
Gibran.
|
|
|
01/13/2010 1:20PM
|
Join FishTactics.com to post a reply!
|
|
River_Walker
Member
Status:
offline
Posts: 424
From: British Columbia
Joined: Nov 29, 2006
|
|
Thread - Cutting the hatchery Steelhead from the Cowich ...
|
Post #4
|
I think they should produce hatchery fish on the cowichan, nanaimo, qualicums, puntledge etc...not sure if they still produce hatchery steelhead in the quinsam but you get my jyst...the pressure on the few rivers that still hold steelhead is getting ridiculous, lets even out the angling pressure and give all the people living on the island other options. It seems every other country that has a world class fishery decides to enhance and promote it and in turn it boosts the local economy drawing people in to experience it. Canada does not seem to value this approach and everyone including the fish suffer because of it. One of the most prized game fish in the world makes its home here and the govt could give a ****.
But now back to the cowy. Its important to know the reason behind the decision to cut the hatchery steelhead production completely...lack of available funding or is it someone calling it a waste of time? and deciding to spend that money elsewhere? does anyone know?
Edited: Jan 13, 2010 7:21PM
|
|
|
01/13/2010 7:20PM
|
Join FishTactics.com to post a reply!
|
|
btree
Member
Status:
offline
Posts: 25
From: Nanaimo, British Columbia
Joined: July 16, 2009
|
|
Thread - Cutting the hatchery Steelhead from the Cowich ...
|
Post #5
|
Well, I agree with the sentiments of all who have posted thus far, but if we are talking about saving the fish rather than satisfying the fisherman, then I'd say scrap most if not all hatchery programs and focus on the habitat. Take out the damn dam at the lake allowing fish to access the resources of the lake and it's tribs, re-establish runs or just allow the relatively invasive O.mykiss to do their thing and slowly reclaim their old spawning grounds. Stop all logging, realestate development, ranching, etc within the drainage, strictly monitor all activities that affect water quality within the drainage, including the estuary and the entire strait of georgia. Shut down the river to all fishing for a long long time to get a sense of baseline data of fish stocks. All the fishers who might be bored because of the lack of fishing could get more involved in rehabing spawning sites, fry rearing habitat etc and monitoring of poaching and other nonesense that happens on so many rivers.
I'm no from the Island, but have watched my home river decline into infamy as one of the top 10 most imperiled streams in BC (Kettle River), and it sickens me to learn more and more about the disasters fueled by the almighty dollar and an apparent ''need'' for certain types of jobs. And I say this with a full sense of what it means to have my past, present and likely future lifestyle linked directly to forestry and now fisheries and aquaculture (since that's what I've chosen to study after a bout of teaching).
My biggest concern is the unique genetics that is being altered by enhancement. I've yet to hear of or see an example of where enhancement by a hatchery program has lead to increases in wild stocks. It seems that the opposite happens - wild stocks slowly decline and are eventually blended out.
Populations of any organisms need to be identifiable as genetically distinct to be accounted for and protected under most legislation in North America (I find it somewhat ironic that the US has stronger legislation in regards to protecting imperiled and endangered species than Canada). Once there is a hatchery program on a river, that strain of fish is usually no longer considered in the same way a wild stock would be, and often is not protected.
Perhaps the move to stop the enhancement program is a ploy to identify the Cowichan as unique. I for one would be more than happy to have it become a classified water without a hatchery and more effort spent on keeping those damn Tim Horton's cups off the river banks (among other garbage that plagues our rivers - the Stamp is disgusting for that!!!) and stopping poaching, snagging and other common events of idiocracy, let alone getting down to the basics of caring for a stream and undoing the damage our industries and lifestyles have done.
I hope that within my lifetime several rivers on the Island and in BC are recognized for their uniqueness and are further protected and at least classified to restrict access and more strongly monitored and actual prosecution followed through on offenders.
It's either that or be prepared for what's happened in the UK - stewardship, private ownership and very expensive access to any sort of stream fishing worth talking about.
I've been reading a lot of Haig-Brown these days, and it's sad to heard his laments about the declines he and others recognized decades ago, and now here we are, having not listened to him and others, with much bigger problems and much more drastic declines. Unless we are prepared to put down our rods, spears, nets and what have you, as well as stop messing with anything that affects the fish directly and indirectly, all this talk will be for not.
Go big or go home.
If you want to satisfy the fishermen, send them to a lake full of hatchery fish and let them toss worms on treble hooks.
Edited: Jan 13, 2010 8:23PM
|
|
|
01/13/2010 8:10PM
|
Join FishTactics.com to post a reply!
|
|
Gibran
Member
Status:
offline
Posts: 24
From: Lk. Cowichan, British Columbia
Joined: Jan 8, 2010
|
|
Thread - Cutting the hatchery Steelhead from the Cowich ...
|
Post #6
|
well said btree, however the dispute of hatcheries vs wild will always be a topic of dispute. Where would we be today without them (hatcheries) given the damage done by your afford menntioned travisties committed on many wild streams and rivers in our province.
The Vedder river has an outstanding record for a hatchery stock as only wild fish are used for broad stock (I know because I worked there for three years in the late eighties).
Many clipped Steelhead in that system top the high teens, with some in the twenties each season. This is incrediable concidering the pressure that river recieves every year.
The Stamp now only producing cookey cutter 8 to 10 pounders.
I agree with you on many of your points, but we need to put back what we take out of this resource, whether it be habitat re construction and or enhancement as well as in combination.
Where would the Thompson be today without enhancment on the nicola and the bonapart?
I agree with you all the way that wild fish systems are the way to go...the copper, the kalum, the dean...etc
The reallity is the rivers in the lower mainland and here on the southeren part of the Island receive to much pressure to sustain this fishery without help, and lets face it a catch and keep stocked trout lake fished with dew worms and tripple hooks is not for you or I.
I agree with you on many of your points made, but a propperly run and managed hatchery system (given it's location) could help in the longevitey of it's life.
Let's protect the strong wild runs we still have, but don't let the week ones hanging on slip away.
Gibran
P.S. please forgive me for spelling mistakes.
|
|
|
01/13/2010 10:44PM
|
Join FishTactics.com to post a reply!
|
|
Merlin
Member
Status:
offline
Posts: 13
From: Nanaimo
Joined: Dec 5, 2009
|
|
Thread - Cutting the hatchery Steelhead from the Cowich ...
|
Post #7
|
|
Gibran, thanks for bringing this change in steelhead management to our attention. It's the first I've heard of it, so I'd like to know the details. Would you, or anyone else, have a link to any government announcement about it? Thanks very much in advance.
|
|
|
01/13/2010 11:06PM
|
Join FishTactics.com to post a reply!
|
|
Gibran
Member
Status:
offline
Posts: 24
From: Lk. Cowichan, British Columbia
Joined: Jan 8, 2010
|
|
Thread - Cutting the hatchery Steelhead from the Cowich ...
|
Post #8
|
Sorry Merlin I don't. They tend to keep these kind of things under the sheets until the public finds out....by then it's to late, they did the same on the Nitnat, (cut the Steelhead program) and tried to on the Stamp a few years ago, if it wasn't for people like David and Marilyn Murphy they would have slipped that one by us too. The best thing to do is put pressure on your local MLA, ask questions and turn up the heat!
A strong sport fishery in the river helps drive local economy, so why are we going back wards?
I can remember when even the Nanaimo had a strong Steelhead population...not any more!
|
|
|
01/14/2010 7:40AM
|
Join FishTactics.com to post a reply!
|
|
curmudgeon
Member
Status:
offline
Posts: 94
From: North Saanich, British Columbia
Joined: Oct 22, 2008
|
|
Thread - Cutting the hatchery Steelhead from the Cowich ...
|
Post #9
|
The Hatchery program was cut 2 years ago when the province decided that the program was not cost effective. At that time, they were capturing a small number of Wild fish (30)and using them for brood stock. They ran a badly flawed, anecdotal count of returning hatchery fish for the last 3 years of the program. The count was an on-site creel census of hatchery steelhead harvest rates. It concluded that only 30 hatchery steelhead were being caught by anglers each year. With this data, they concluded that it was not worth the $$$$$ to run the hatchery program.
Most steelheaders on the river felt that the on-site creel census was a joke. If you were a bank angler who fished Stoltz,Bible Camp or the Cedar Log pool, you would probably get questioned several times over the season as to whether you had caught or retained a hatchery fish. If you regularily drifted the river in a pontoon boat or drift boat or if you were a die hard bushwacker, you probably weren't part of the creel census.
Anyone fishing the river on a regular basis knew that there were problems with steelhead coming out of the hatchery. They tended to be stunted fish. There have been all kinds of shots taken at the local hatchery in regard to practices and training. The hatchery staff seems to be trying to do a good job with an outdated facility and minimal funding.
There appears to be some problems with the water source used by the hatchery. It is a ground water source that at times has very high metal contents. It is not a consistant problem and seems to be more noticeable when the aquifier that supplies the water is drawn down. The effects of the water problems are poor fry survival and egg hatch rates and stunted fry.
These effects seeem to be born out by a recent history of stunted Hatchery Steelhead and poor hatchery Chinook hatch and survival rates.
Interestingly, a major aquaculture producer runs a factory hatchery for all their aquaculture operations in close proximity to the hatchery. They draw water form the same aquifier and yet have close to a 100% egg hatch and fry survival rate. The difference is in the filter system that they utilize to deal with inherent water quality problems in the area.
2 years ago DFO was presented with these problems at a rather stormy community meeting after a disasterous chinook return to the Cowichan. DFO undertook to provide funding , training and scientific resources to the hatchery. Additionally, they promised tolook into the water supply quality issues and fix them.
Thus far, nothing seems to have been done. We've had another dismal Chinook return. There are still no answers on the water problems faced by the hatchery, the facility is still antiquated and we are all grumbling about steelhead and salmon numbers.
In regard to Pinks, lets not mistake a community net pen in Cowichan Bay with a Hatchery progrma to establish Pink Salmon in the Cowichan. The Pink net Pen Program in Cowichan Bay was designed to return pinks to Cowichan Bay not to populate the river. It was successful in returning fish that were caught recreationaly by local anglers. The local first nations were allowed a mop up fishery at the program end. Some folks may start to sream about those nasty pinks straying into the Cowichan and squeezing the Chinooks and Coho off the spawning grounds. In fact, there has always been some stray pinks that amke it into the lower reaches of the river (yes even before the advent of net pens). Pinks are notoriously poor spawners and cannot produce viable eggs when water temperatures are as warm as they are in the Cowichan riverin the late summer and early fall.
So how do we solve this? If we want catchable and retainable Steelhead in the Cowichan then we need a renewal of the Hatchery Program and major upgrades to the Hatchery.Probabaly a hard sell with the Provincial Fisheries Programs.
If we want to save Chinook in the Cowichan River then once again we need an updated ,productive healthy hatchery program.
I would love to be able to take the position that if we all pulled together we wouldn't need hatchery programs for rivers like the Cowichan; that we could repair the ravages of poor logging and developement and return the river to a condition where the natal fish stocks could flourish and re-establish themseves. But I think that is an impossibility. The Chinook stocks can hardly be called natal. There has been years of augmentation with other stocks just to retain some fish in the system. More importantly, the stocks are so low that even with perfect river conditions they are probably not viable.
There are other issues such as poor ocean survival, a catch phrase for all the things that happen after fry leave the river, DFO mismanagement over fishing etc.... We should probably be trying to target all these issues as no one thing has driven down our fishery.
Sorry for the rant, but the management of the river fisery and the Cowichan River has been criminal.
|
|
|
01/14/2010 12:25PM
|
Join FishTactics.com to post a reply!
|
|
btree
Member
Status:
offline
Posts: 25
From: Nanaimo, British Columbia
Joined: July 16, 2009
|
|
Thread - Cutting the hatchery Steelhead from the Cowich ...
|
Post #10
|
I too would like to know more about this issue - too bad things are cloak and dagger at this point. I'll ask around and see what I can learn up here at the school (VIU).
I'm glad we are all on the same page here. It's quite the debate, and I do realize my initial response is a bit too idealistic.
Is there any chance a Fishing or Outdoors club could take over some sort of hatchery type enhancement and do a careful selection of brood to avoid the genetic/cookie cutter issues like we are seeing on the Stamp?
|
|
|
01/14/2010 12:55PM
|
Join FishTactics.com to post a reply!
|
|
Bdub
Member
Status:
offline
Posts: 53
From: Nanaimo, British Columbia
Joined: Nov 7, 2009
|
|
Thread - Cutting the hatchery Steelhead from the Cowich ...
|
Post #11
|
You guys and myself are clearly looking for Utopia here?
Not to mix politics with pleasure but....that is whats happening here.
do you honestly think for 1 second, our provincial or federal govt's give a rats azz?
Its all about fish farming now boys.like it or not and theres not a damn thing we can do about it.
i love the utopian ideal of the gov't and indian bands getting together too.
To do what though,sit in a circle and sing Kumbya?
The idea of groups of fishermen getting together to improve stock qualities and habitats makes the most sense,great idea actually.
I'm a former mountain biker,we had to make our own trails no one else would.
Maybe,just maybe the govt's would listen to groups of anglers offering our time and resources to improve our local fisheries?
nobody knows it better than us.
|
|
|
01/14/2010 1:37PM
|
Join FishTactics.com to post a reply!
|
|
btree
Member
Status:
offline
Posts: 25
From: Nanaimo, British Columbia
Joined: July 16, 2009
|
|
Thread - Cutting the hatchery Steelhead from the Cowich ...
|
Post #12
|
I asked a few questions at VIU today. No one knew about steelhead program being stopped - some even wondered if there ever was a steelhead program to enhance the Cowie.
Any who, I like the idea of skipping the provincial government and just doing it ourselves on our own. It's easier to ask forgiveness than ask for permission sometimes. Might also be worth it to try to volunteer time with organizations that already have some level of approval from the powers that be to do habitat and enhancement work.
Any way, I hope it stops raining soon, otherwise river fishing will be completely out of the question this weekend :(
|
|
|
01/14/2010 4:53PM
|
Join FishTactics.com to post a reply!
|
|
Gibran
Member
Status:
offline
Posts: 24
From: Lk. Cowichan, British Columbia
Joined: Jan 8, 2010
|
|
Thread - Cutting the hatchery Steelhead from the Cowich ...
|
Post #13
|
|
Well I know there are a lot of guys(& Gals) here in the Cowichan Valley alone that are ready and willing to volunteer our time to do what we can. The right way and most economical way is to pen raise them in the lake and release them to the river....like they did years ago.
|
|
|
01/14/2010 9:30PM
|
Join FishTactics.com to post a reply!
|
|
SmokeyRiver
Member
Status:
offline
Posts: 94
From: N/A
Joined: Dec 1, 2008
|
|
Thread - Cutting the hatchery Steelhead from the Cowich ...
|
Post #14
|
Yea btree.
I totally agree, I'm all up for volunteer programs, seems to be hard to find any on the island even. I wish there were ore hatcheries out here that I could volunteer at, I enjoy that type of work immensely.
I really wish that it was possible to just have private organizations fund hatcheries, maybe have like 10 or more companies sponsoring a hatchery which could run with a few regulars and volunteer work. I would even be up for it if you had to pay something like a classified water tag on certain rivers to help fund hatcheries. It would keep more beeks off the river and allow for hatchery work to continue.
Btw. We need to find a place to fish this weekend man  Im thinking hit up some beaches... The lake (you know what one Im talking about) is flooding the trail... bloody rain, I wanted to go to the Stamp lol.
|
|
|
01/14/2010 9:37PM
|
Join FishTactics.com to post a reply!
|
|
Merlin
Member
Status:
offline
Posts: 13
From: Nanaimo
Joined: Dec 5, 2009
|
|
Thread - Cutting the hatchery Steelhead from the Cowich ...
|
Post #15
|
Thanks for that info, Curmudgeon. When you talk about ''the hatchery'', which one are you referring to: The DFO Cowichan River Hatchery, at the foot of Boys Road, or the Vancouver Island Trout Hatchery, on Wharncliffe Road?
I know the DFO hatchery raised steelhead (along with salmon), back in the 80's, but I though steelhead production later shifted to the Wharncliffe Rd. hatchery.
Thanks for clarification.
|
|
|
01/14/2010 9:42PM
|
Join FishTactics.com to post a reply!
|
|
Merlin
Member
Status:
offline
Posts: 13
From: Nanaimo
Joined: Dec 5, 2009
|
|
Thread - Cutting the hatchery Steelhead from the Cowich ...
|
Post #16
|
SmokeyRiver wrote:
Yea btree.
I totally agree, I'm all up for volunteer programs, seems to be hard to find any on the island even.
TONS of them here, SmokeyRiver! Here's a starting point:
http://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/community/dir/projects_e.htm
Click area 8, and you find a bunch of Cowichan projects.
|
|
|
01/14/2010 9:55PM
|
Join FishTactics.com to post a reply!
|
|
btree
Member
Status:
offline
Posts: 25
From: Nanaimo, British Columbia
Joined: July 16, 2009
|
|
Thread - Cutting the hatchery Steelhead from the Cowich ...
|
Post #17
|
|
Thanks for the link Merlin. Perhaps it might be a good thing for this site to add is a section on volunteer opportunities! Or am I missing something?
|
|
|
01/15/2010 8:57AM
|
Join FishTactics.com to post a reply!
|
|
kromer
Member
Status:
offline
Posts: 574
From: Port Alberni, British Columbia
Joined: Nov 7, 2006
|
|
Thread - Cutting the hatchery Steelhead from the Cowich ...
|
Post #18
|
Gibran wrote:
Well I know there are a lot of guys(& Gals) here in the Cowichan Valley alone that are ready and willing to volunteer our time to do what we can. The right way and most economical way is to pen raise them in the lake and release them to the river....like they did years ago.
Any idea of the cost to do this. Have you looked for funding?
|
|
|
01/15/2010 2:09PM
|
Join FishTactics.com to post a reply!
|
|
Gibran
Member
Status:
offline
Posts: 24
From: Lk. Cowichan, British Columbia
Joined: Jan 8, 2010
|
|
Thread - Cutting the hatchery Steelhead from the Cowich ...
|
Post #19
|
|
Thats a step we are working on...Gord March a good friend of mine (owner operator of Cowichan Fly and Tackle) Is helping as well, it will take some kind of funding to get it rolling again for sure.
|
|
|
01/15/2010 3:19PM
|
Join FishTactics.com to post a reply!
|
|
cory
Moderator
Status:
offline
Posts: 2518
From: Calgary, Alberta
Joined: Dec 16, 2006
|
|
Thread - Cutting the hatchery Steelhead from the Cowich ...
|
Post #20
|
Great discussion so far...lets keep it up.
Im curious what course of action a volunteer group has to take in order to be granted permission to take broodstock and start raising fish and doing it in a way that's environmentally acceptable.
I think about the success of the Nile Creek pink salmon hatchery near Bowser. The Nile Creek Enhancement Society were able to restore pinks back into the creek after virtually going extinct...but the thing is they dont have to raise fish. Once pinks hatch they feed off their yolk and migrate to the ocean.
------------------------------------
Members !!! You can now add a simple text forum signature to your profile. Click 'Edit Profile' in your user menu to change it.
|
|
|
01/16/2010 12:57PM
|
Join FishTactics.com to post a reply!
|
