Steelhead Management, Skeena Style by Bob Hooton
EDITORS NOTE: Backgrounder on who is Bob Hooton? – The unofficial bio, after some hard digging. We normally never do this but given Bob’s contribution to protecting the incredible steelhead resource in the face of so many political opportunists, it’s time we gave special recognition to this senior steelhead advocate. I won’t post it here but click on the link, as we posted it on a separate page. Bob has a special meaning to us locals, as a long time local resident here. Most of his bio we gleaned from an old website he used to run called “Steelhead Voices”
We’re far enough into the 2024 Skeena steelhead return to be able to make a few observations. For what they’re worth, consider the following.
• The Tyee index for steelhead has likely accounted for 90-95% of the total annual return as of August 26. The numbers on that date indicated an estimated 32,695 steelhead had reached that point. That number was very unexpectedly higher than all pre-season signals would have suggested. Interestingly, the same pattern has prevailed on three other systems with longer term data sets on steelhead of the summer run persuasion, the Nass along with the Dean and Columbia.
• The fact the estimated abundance of Skeena steelhead is what it is in 2024 would seem to have eliminated any prospect of the usual interest groups focusing on anything other than going fishing. The abundance of Skeena sockeye and a daily limit of four per angler is an even greater anaesthetic.
• Commercial fishery pressure in Area 4 has been relatively light from an historic perspective. The gill net fleet size has averaged 72 vessels participating for each of 11 days of fishing. That level of effort is about 10% of what it was in the late 1980s and early 90s. Reduced daily effort undoubtedly reduced total steelhead catch but not proportionately. That relates to what was long ago identified as the density effect. Stated simply, that means there is number of vessels beyond which the total catch does not increase. Instead, the catch per vessel is less. All I can say definitively is 72 vessels fishing in the high steelhead interception areas (4-12 and 3-15) can remove a lot of steelhead.
• Reported steelhead catches by the commercial fleets continue to be more than slightly short on credibility. For example, the Area 4 gill net fleet reported an average of .77 steelhead per vessel day. The seine fleet, operating in essentially the same area reported an average of 6.7 steelhead per vessel day. The Area 3 seine fleet reported almost exactly 1 steelhead per vessel day while the gill netters reported .10 steelhead per day. Viewed differently, the Tyee test fishery ratio of sockeye to steelhead for comparable time periods was five times the same ratio reported by the gill net fleet. That is precisely the same figure that emerged for 2023. The Nass fish wheels reported a sockeye to steelhead ratio 18 times greater than did the Area 3 gill netters. I’ll go with the Tyee data and the Nass fish wheel data as infinitely more reliable than the reported commercial catches. But, what does anyone suppose goes on the formal commercial fishery records of steelhead catch that will be used forever after? Has there ever been a footnote or asterisk beside those numbers to indicate they are less than accurate? How is it that “we” can go after the Southeast Alaska fisheries for failure to report steelhead catches when our own well understood history is equally bad?
• The commercial fishery in Area 4 terminated on August 9, about one week after promised in the pre-season discussions. It is a safe assumption the unexpectedly high steelhead return was the major factor in rejecting any notion of closing the commercial fishery “in early August” as originally indicated in the Integrated Fisheries Management Plan DFO invests ridiculous amounts of time and resources to produce. (IFMPs are policy only, readily altered whenever it suits.)
• Whereas the conventional commercial fishery closed on August 9, that did not herald the termination of net fishing in Area 4. Numerous “economic opportunity fisheries” were sanctioned immediately thereafter. What we’re left with is the fact there were commercial nets (mostly gill nets) fishing in Area 4 on all but two days (August 10 and12) between July 24 and August 21. The commercial fishery catch reporting for steelhead is obviously abysmal but there are no reports of steelhead catches during those economic opportunity fisheries. Of note, however, is all the conditions that supposedly apply during the conventional commercial fisheries (e.g. short sets, short nets, recovery boxes, non-target species to be released, etc.) are listed as applying to the economic fisheries as well. But, after all the ink describing those conditions comes this caveat which states non-target species can be retained provided they are not sold.
• Economic opportunity fishing was not restricted to tidal waters. DFO also announced similar in-river fisheries for the period August 20-26. The condition there was all such fishing had to be with selective gear. There hasn’t been any clarification of what that means.
• There has been no direction offered with respect to catch reporting for any economic opportunity fishery. It appears to be left to the individual First Nations participating to provide such information at some unspecified future date.
• Ultimately, between commencement of commercial fishing in Area 4 on July 13 and the conclusion of the economic opportunity fishery openings on Aug 26, legally authorized nets will have been fishing on 37 of those 45 days.
• In addition to the fishing already described, there is the ever present Food, Social and Ceremonial (FSC) fishing prosecuted by First Nations in both tidal and non-tidal waters. In tidal waters that fishing generally involves the same vessels that participate in commercial fishing openings. In non-tidal waters it is mostly set or drift gill nets. Most recently, a custom built bow picker style vessel has been observed drifting a gill net through productive reaches of the mainstem Skeena.
• The one promising feature of the in-river Skeena fisheries this year has been the Kitselas Band’s pursuit of fish wheels as an alternative to conventional gill nets. The Band deserves to be commended for their vision and effort to alter the status quo. Their upriver and downriver brothers need to be paying attention.
• On the recreational fishery front, the agency responsible is absent, as usual. Their only visibility has been in relation to the angling closure of the Kispiox River, allegedly in response to elevated temperature. In reality that is a purely political measure driven by the foreign origin agent of the Gitxsans. The same fish the closures was sold as saving were virtually guaranteed to remain in the Skeena in the Kispiox confluence area as long as the Kispiox discharge remained at the level it was August 15. The confluence area has been a pay to play fishery administered by the Kispiox Band (i.e. Gitxsans) for about a decade now. So, here we have an angling closure driven by the Kispiox/Gitxsan agent, declarations by Gitxsan chiefs (on 3 separate occasions) the entire area is off limits to any recreational anglers because they play with FN food, and members of the same FN collecting revenue from all who subscribe to the payment arrangement. I’m told guides get a special deal. The province (i.e. Minister Nathan Cullen) refuses to enter the equation for fear it might alienate FN voters he depends on for re-election this fall.
• And what are the alleged voices of the recreational fishing community preoccupied with? Revising the terms of reference of DFO’s Sport Fish Advisory Board such that steelhead are now on its agenda! Pray tell when was the last time the Skeena First Nations heard of the SFAB, much less paid any attention to anything stemming from it?
Who carries the can on behalf of steelhead these days? I haven’t seen a word of concern expressed by any of the groups or people in receipt of this message. The closest anyone came was a request for me to try and quantify the impact of the extra days of commercial fishing in the second week of August. I responded indicating that was, by far, the least of my concerns given all the unmonitored and unquantified First Nations fishing already on the record and more to come. Silence thereafter. No one dares hint that the FN situation is effectively out of control. Any message in that regard would jeopardize relationships with FNs and threaten the future of funding opportunities now dependent on collaborative approaches. Steelhead are such a non-priority in that scenario it is completely understandable they are a zero priority.
I’ve said too many times patience is an age thing. The older I get, the less tolerant I am for treading water. Here’s a couple of examples to illustrate why I would say such a thing. Both are the result of efforts made by gifted writer and publisher Tom Pero. The first is now 34 years old. Pero spent two years researching and preparing that piece. It shows. The second is a mere 25 years old. I don’t know if either of these is still available but some of you might think it worthwhile to try and chase down copies. Tom is still in the publishing business and not hard to find. If you ever need evidence of how little things have changed over the many years, look no further. The only difference is catch allocation. Whatever has been saved from commercial nets has never seen gravel. Instead those fish have succumbed to that other user group wholly free to use the same gear that put Skeena steelhead conservation on the map initially. Don’t ever forget the recreational fishery either. It bears no resemblance to what it was when these articles were published. That is just one more feature of the overall picture that continues to be ignored. Same question – who cares?
