I couldn't agree more about the federal fisheries. They provide cover for fisheries and foreign fish farms under the mandate of protecting the fish stocks and habitate. Its a travisty of bureaucracy that we all pay for in taxes to pay their salaries, as well as the lost resource once its been fully exploited and destroyed.

With local politicians like Dick Harris and his ilk in government now... the fish will have likely already been written off in favor of foreign corporation profits.

My hope is that the public inquiry that is supposed to start this fall will finally allow for scientific evidence to be thrusted into the face of the federal fisheries and hopefully a lot of heads will roll in that departments post inquiry aftermath.

I think all those foreign fish farms should be banned from BC waters and should only be allowed on land with proper sanitation plans in place.

I think no corporation should control a BC water shed much less one that has salmon and sturgon issues. Rio Tinto should never have been allowed to presume they control the flows of water on our rivers for their profits to their foreign shareholders. That should end and I hold Gordon Campbell responsible for selling out the salmon in that regard. Gordon Campbell governs for the greed of corporations and their elites and not for the working class and general welfare of this province.

I also think the native fishing with nets on the river has to end. It is so wrong on many fronts. Let them use a rod like the rest of us, or a spear like the old ways, but the nets simply should no longer be tollerated by the rest of us that call this province our home too. If they want to use nets then those that would use them should buy boats and join the commercial fisheries under commercial laws.

IMO it shows how corrupt our system really is when issues this important mean nothing to the politicians in power. This issue is a clear piece of evidence that our democracy is broken.

When we have governments that cannot control what is happening to the air quality that PEOPLE breathe, why would we think that they could control the water quality that FISH extract their oxygen from?

Or perhaps that should be stated in the reverse? All ends up looking the same. A basic life support is being eroded for a living creature.

Fish farms are not the problem, if one where to do just a little itty bitty research on the subject that will be seen. Be suspicious of any scientist that is in the taxpayers pocket. He/she will say about anything to keep the money coming in, just look at climategate for an example.

It is only the sockeye that is in trouble not other species, and that is on the whole coast, not just where they could be affected by fish farms. The pinks have had some of the biggest runs in history right in the middle of the fish farm area.

The sockeye are also down on rivers least affected by human population and industry, why?

Well said Mr. Meisner, I wish t h e y
would listen to all the warnings and
warning signs!

fish stocks are down most likly because of overfishing on the ocean something that we have no control of should be a world wide agreement on ocean fishing or what happened to the cod will happen to the salmon

I agree completely. DFO needs to be shaken from the top down. Ottawa has no idea what is going on. The way this agency has become a front for the Norwegian salmon farming industry is very destructive. I know many don't want to believe holding millions of salmon stationary can cause disease problems, but at the very least DFO must communicate truthfully. When DFO states the sea lice we found on young Fraser sockeye are not the same species as commonly found on farm salmon, they fail to note Marine Harvest posts their sea lice numbers and Caligus lice are reported every month on most farms often a single farm hosting millions.

When DFO refuses to test every Norwegian farm for the ISA virus they risk the entire North Pacific, for what? When they refuse to deal with the enormous issue of by-catch of herring, salmon, black cod and other species in closed areas by fish farms they fail to protect our fish.

Fortunately the courts are more than willing to take a look at this, and this will be a pivotal year.

As soon as the fish farms in the Discovery Islands and Broughton de-loused in time for the pink salmon outmigration we saw huge rebounds in these stocks. Unfortunately it is too early for the sockeye and by the time they come on scene the drug has worn off and lice are ascending. Sea lice are very effective disease vectors and new research will be shedding light on this.

I hope the results of the SFU think tank on sockeye will have the weight to clear at least one Fraser sockeye migration route this spring. This has worked in Norway, Scotland, Ireland, and the Broughton. It would be wrong not to try it here.

Good article Ben.

I agree that the salmon are getting a raw deal. Fish farms, habitat destruction, the gutting of enforcement personnel from various governmental organizations, the changing (more business friendly) mandates of those same governmental enforcement bodies, making corportaions "responsible" for self policing their activities, over fishing by everyone, climate change, etc., are all contributing factors to this problem.

We now have governments who are scared to fullfill their madates (that being to look out for the masses and preserve the "overall good") because they may upset or offend particular groups or large business and we have a culture that is so focused on money and greed, that we collectively won't do anything unless we can see an immediate and obvious short-term gain, to hell with the long-term impacts of our actions. At best, it's pure selfishness, ineptitude, naivety, and tunnel vision everywhere you look. At worst, it's a deliberate selling out of our land, rivers and natural wealth/treasures.

You all need an attitude adjustment. The natural world is always changing. You are clinging on to some bizarre fantasy that our waters will never change. Preservationists face the discouraging dilemma of trying to force nature to be the way it was in the 50's or some outer heyday they regard as "ideal". The only thing more foolish than failing to recognize a changing system is trying to force creatures to survive in a place that no longer supports them. ie stocked salmon, ie stocked sturgeon, ie stocked caribou, ie stocked wolves, etc, etc. Preservationists have transformed this province from a wild kingdom to some ecological nanny state where our wild animals are raised in petrie dishes like in some horror film, then released to die of exposure in an environment that can't support them. Get a grip people. The world will not sit still for you. The faster the stupid salmon die the faster we can dam the Fraser and make some real money instead of living hand to mouth sawing logs. And the kicker? First Nations will be the ones to kill the fish - they have the rope, they'll hang the fish.

Gamblor says, "The faster the stupid salmon die the faster we can dam the Fraser and make some real money."

And when we get to human stocked on land that can't support them, what use will the money be?

Don't be silly. This land can support us and many more. Look at the Columbia River in the Kootenays - its extensively dammed and still supports a thriving fishery, some are fish that existed before, others are new. 6 million people now live in its drainage, the river only supported 10000 natives before being properly harnessed. The explanation for this simple - the warmer, more nutrient-rich river supports MORE fish per mile. The dams provide abundant power for people and business. If you don't like dams, practice what you preach and cut power to your house - your lights are lit with power from a dammed Columbia river, to use the power is to support the dam, and encourage new ones.

In regards to fish, we need to stop looking at fish better suited to our new rivers as "invaders" or "aliens" as suggested by our current crop of preservationist biologists. The brown trout of the Bow River are "aliens" that now make up a blue ribbon fishery supporting 50 guiding and outfitting companies serving 3000 anglers a year and bringing in $30 mil a year in eco-tourism dollars to the Calgary area each year. Not bad for an "invader". Dam the salmon. And jeers to the outdated, backward-thinking preservationists who are choking the life out of our province.

3,000 anglers paying 30 million works out to $10,000 for each fisherman fishing for brown trout. If you believe that, the Bow River Bridge is for sale, and I’ll toss in a few Brown trout, that it is recommended that you don’t eat, because they are polluted. Mind you if you want some fish, why not salmon from BC that’s what most restaurants serve in Calgary, or I forgot they are native to their waters, or is the demand not for those coveted Brow Trout.
As Meisner would say, STUPID, STUPID,STUPID

The Columbia must support a strong commercial fishery, enough for us all to have fish on our menu. Oh Did I hear they have too many parasites, worms and toxins etc to be fit to eat. People wouldn’t consider eating them. A study found that the toxins could be harmful, that’s sounds like good food. What about the Sturgeon, Oh! what the hell we don’t need them either gamblor, we will eat a kilowat of power instead.

10 grand for a fishing trip is not out of line, especially when you consider that figure comprises total economic activity, including spinoffs which can be hard be hard to quantify. Either way, its a significant fishery. I know salmon is served in AB and BC - and the vast majority of it is farmed (61 million tonnes to 26 million and falling). yet another example of how preservationism has moved our great outdoors out the rivers and into the laboratory. If you call fish farms a healthy, viable way to eat fish, I got a septic tank full of "brown trout" for you.

What about the sturgeon? It supports a puny catch and release only fishery that is doomed to fail at the hands of the bunglers controlling our fisheries. Dam them too. I don't hear anybody in the Kootenays complaining about the fishing. Nobody there misses the salmon. On the other hand, I know many people who go there to fish instead of here because its so much better and diverse. You aren't fishing for what's not there. All you get in our part of the Fraser these days is squawfish and dollies you can't keep. barf.

There are other ways of providing electrical power than damming rivers. It is not a case of dam the damn things or shutup, as you seem to think. Remember also, that dammed land cannot be used to grow anything else. Farmland is removed and agriculture may be reduced. At the very least, expansion is no longer possible.

In the future, as oil becomes more expensive, many expect that there will be an expansion of locally produced plant foods and food animals that can thrive on them. If the land is not there, the expansion can't take place.

How many billions of people live now? How many will there be in 50 years? In 100 years? Look after it now or our grandchildren and greatgrandchildren will have to deal with it in the future. Not our problem, you say? It is becoming so, increasingly, and as population grows worldwide, will become more so.

As to new fish species being introduced. That's been tried before. It is not a panacea and has been the cause of a lot of problems. Look at the introduction of carp in river systems and the damage they cause. At one time it was a popular food fish, but tastes change - the carp, however, remain, disturbing and muddying the waters.

alexandra Morton what do you eat? Everything you eat comes from a farm. You have done a lot of research, but have you ever spent any time on a fish farm? What effect do longlining, dragging, fish resorts, pollutants, logging, develoment weakened DNA from hatchery fish have on salmon. How come sockeye stocks are weak but other species stocks seem fine. Each farm is under constant veterinary watch. Lice are taken care of when detected. Farmed salmon get lice from wild salmon. Farmed salmon eat less protein per pound of protein grown, than any other farm animal.

Your computers seem to run just fine on hydro power. Like I said, if dams are so bad, pull the plug then come talk to me.

Mr. Meisner, lay blame where blame is due. The Atlantic fishery dwarfs the Pacific one something like 80% to 20%. So its natural our federal fisheries dept is run by easterners. Its not that they want to kill our salmon, its that they don't understand and they don't care. Which means our provincial biologists need to be at the top of their game. Unfortunately they are not. Some of the biggest crimes against animals have been perpetrated by biologists in this province. Sick rivers, sick oceans, sick forests, there is nothing they can manage properly. And its all because they stive to achieve some Disney-esque ideal world where people happily skip through meadows arm-in-arm with talking, trouser-wearing grizzly bears. The whole thing is sick. The halucinations of drug-addled, porn crazed cartoonists from LA is wht passes for environmental policy in this province. That is truly sad.

Salmon are the New Indians - a species on welfare, kept there to provide jobs for ignorant, morally bankrupt biologists who squash all attempts to bring them to task. The problem is here Mr. Meisner, not Ottawa.

Our Fraser is a case in point: what is there to catch in and around PG? You can't keep the sturgeon or the dollies or bulls or burbot. The rainbows are non-existant but you can keep 5 if you can find them, go figure - fish all you want for fish that aren't there. If you catch one, its tiny. So our biologists in all their knowledge are wholeheartedly encouraging the decimation of the only sportfish of any consequence in the Fraser by endorsing the take of baby rainbows. sick. Sqawfish are abundant, but they're destructive garbage fish proven to devour salmon smolts. Whitefish are junk fish. Some people say they're good, I'd maybe feed them to my dog. They don't fight much and are small. The people managing this fishery are from this province and should all be fired for gross incompetence and animal cruelty on a huge scale.

I'd take carp any day over the crap fish we got muddying the waters now. There are many other species that have a proven track record for revitalizing damaged fisheries. All I'm suggesting is that the Fraser fishery is be far from dead as suggested in the original article after the loss of the salmon. Our grandchildren could inherit an excellent fishery - maybe not OUR fishery but a viable, healthy one IF we act prudently. But I can't see it happening with who we have running the show now. "Fish experts" like Dr Gordon Hartman are what put us here. You don't let a wolf take care of the chickens. We need less "fish experts" and a whole lot more common sense.

But I'll echo Meisner's comment "Instead of looking for the root cause of the declining salmon populations, the Fisheries people are out on the stream checking for sports fishermen, hoping to get a pinch and the subsequent fine for no license." Couldn't have said it better myself. Our biologists are expert at deflecting and denying blame when one of their stunts go horribly wrong. The blood of thousands of animals drips from their hands. When an icon species like the salmon decline, our first reraction is to try to save them, and I empathise with that. But its not always the best move. We need to look at our rivers objectively and ask "do we want a quality fishery or an animal welfare state." Until we boot our current crop of biologists, we're stuck with the latter.