Few organizations have been as influential as the Steelhead Society in fighting to protect wild salmon in British Columbia. The group, which has brought together fishermen from all walks of life, has lobbied government, pressured industry to change, raised funds for projects, educated the public and done gumboot work - getting out in the watersheds to improve habitat.

In recent years it became so deeply involved in watershed improvement that it spun off a related entity just to focus on habitat work. Tapping into millions of dollars the British Columbia government made available, the Steelhead Society's habitat renewal operation was soon working on projects in several key watersheds.

But along the way, something went wrong. There was a loss of control, of focus, and a laxity over the budget that was so disturbing some highly regarded directors took their leave. Employees in the habitat renewal section quit en masse. As the Steelhead Society's board struggled with the crisis, chaos ruled.

Some people said the only solution was for Dan Burns, the Steelhead Society president, to resign. Mr. Burns, a dynamic, young Vancouver lawyer was the driving force behind the habitat renewal initiative. And he was the one who had to shoulder the blame for the turmoil that erupted.

Mr. Burns has done more than launch the habitat renewal program, however. He also greatly expanded the Steelhead Society membership, drawing in corporate partners often through fund-raising dinners.

The dinners were lavish compared to the past events, which had a pot-luck flavour to them. In the past you'd find yourself seated next to a logger, or a lawyer, a doctor or a truck driver - but one thing you'd always find in common, was a love of steelheading, usually combined with considerable knowledge of the sport. The events had a folksy charm, but they didn't make much money and did little to raise the Society's profile among the movers and shakers.

Under Mr. Burns's leadership, the dinners drew a professional crowd that often were attracted by the glamour of steelheading, while not really knowing much about the sport.

The dinners succeeded in raising funds, and connecting the Steelhead Society to influential people. But at the same time, the atmosphere changed, and that left some long time supporters feeling uncomfortable. Many of the old timers drifted away.

The Steelhead Society was wealthier financially because of its approach, but poorer in the currency that really mattered - its people.

In the wake of all this, many are now saying the Steelhead Society has gone so badly off the rails, it should just be abandoned.

Our view is that the organization deserves a second chance. Some serious mistakes have been made, but the Steelhead Society over the years has played a profoundly important role in British Columbia. And it should do so again.

The rivers of B.C., and the wild salmon that swim in them, are too important for people to quit on the Steelhead Society now.

Your magazine is great! Best wishes and thanks for the wonderful words/work,

yours,

- Charles Dawson/ex-UBC Rivers and literature PhD/Lake Taupo, New Zealand

Absolutely top-drawer! And, a very professional and clean web page.

All congratulations.

Cheers,

- Alex Rose/West Vancouver

Your website looks excellent and reads well. Hope you have a fine spring season. Both of my sons are fishing Vancouver Island streams this month. They return each year to favorite rivers after our winter season closes here at the end of March. Keep up the good fight!

Sincerely,

- Frank Amato/Oregon

Thanks for including me on your new website listing. It's a great site. Is this your career, or is this a sideline? Keep it up lad.

Best regards,

- Ottmar Bierwagen/Spectrum Stock Inc./www.spectrumstock.com

(Ed. Note: It's a sideline.)

Wow, what a piece of art! I'm an avid flyfisherman, but I've never fished in waters cooler than the shallow saltwater flats of South Florida. Your site translates better than any other... same philosophy, different environment. Great photos! And I love the sound file on your front page - can I somehow download it for my screen saver?

Thanks again,

- Gary Meyer

(Ed. Note: Good idea on the download, we'll see what we can do.)

I think the story (on fast growing salmon) reads very well and appropriately explains my concerns. And, the photos are great. . . .Take care,

-Robert H. Devlin/Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Dear Mr. Hume:

I would like to congratulate, as well as thank, you, Nick Didlick, and Glenn Baglo for your remarkable website - remarkable for its substance, scope and commitment.

I often get impatient with people who use Roderick Haig-Brown's name in vain, trying to qualify misguided and confused ideas about the conservation of their sport. Based on your writings, I consider you worthy apostles of the man's name and wish you all the best in the continuation of your website.

I first became familiar with your writings a few years ago through your book "The Run of the River." I have returned to it many times since then, lest I forget my anger about the Nechako and my sadness about the Cowichan.

For the small difference it might make, I would like you to know that you will have an appreciative and supportive reader in me.

Best wishes,

- Loucas Raptis/Victoria, BC

An Open letter:

Overview/Analysis: The mid-water trawl fishery in the Strait of Georgia (off Canada's west coast) for Krill or Euphausiids (a large shrimp-like plankton eaten by whales and many fishes including herring and salmon) is considered by some scientists today to be the final industrial assault upon the natural food chain in the sea. Professional fishers have been forced to turn to krill and other lower-on-the-food chain species such as shrimp following the exhaustion and depletion in the Strait of Georgia of the higher-on-the-food chain predatory species such as coho and chinook salmon, and ling cod. A large biomass of krill exists in British Columbia waters, and the scientific justification for this fishery is that it takes but a small portion of the known biomass.

The highly skilled krill or "bug" fishermen slowly pull very small mesh trawl nets, at night, and usually freeze the krill, in blocks, onboard their vessels.

The krill fishery began in Howe Sound less than a decade ago, but has gradually been moved to the more northerly mainland inlets in the Strait. The Fish For Life Foundations believes that in the past the issues of under-reporting of the krill catch and bycatch of salmon and other species were not properly addressed by the (government's) Department of Fisheries and Oceans, creating the familiar pattern of "serial overfishing" which in the case of krill, as with herring, affects entire local marine ecosystems.

Krill is in high demand by the salmon farming industry, which finds that diets including krill acts as a highly effective feeding stimulant.

Krill is also used for pet food, although it is very high in silica, a potential problem for male cats who face blockage of their urinary tract.

The large amounts of krill in the diet of wild salmon are the main reason why the flesh is pink. However, using large volumes of krill feed for (farmed salmon) is prohibitively expensive, and an artificial pigment is added to the feed to give the fish the red colour demanded by consumers.

Because krill are so important to the salmon net cage industry, and a major fishery in the former Antarctica whaling grounds is soon to be greatly expanded by the massive Cargil corporation, a large integrated U.S. agribusiness company with interests in agricultural and aquacultural feed . . .

University of British Columbia professor Dr. Daniel Pauly and the other scientists warn that "fishing down food webs" will eventually lead to the collapsing of the entire ecosystem . This is because fishing for krill and herring will mean that there will eventually be no
food left for the "high trophic level" predatory fish.

The Fish For Life Foundation considers fishing closures or moratoria, such as those now imposed in the Strait of Georgia for chinook and coho salmon, and ling cod, to be insufficient in themselves to enable the full rehabilitation of these species. . .

- David Ellis/Vancouver, B.C.

(Ed. Note: David Ellis is an independant fisheries consultant, founder of The Fish For Life Foundation, and a frequent critic of the government.)

The Editors:

What concerns me (regarding the article Bad Science in the April edition) is the continued abuse of the word "science". The definition is " the study of" and explanation of natural phenomena, a systematic activity requiring study and method and knowledge especially that aquired through experience. It does not say "science" is what is practised by biologists parading as resource managers while furthering social and political agendas and ignoring biological issues. While many of you seem to asume there is all this "science" out there about the Skeena stocks and Bulkley in particular, it just isn't true. Where are these scientific reports? There are however scientific reports out on the effects of bait versus other tackle and Mr. (Joe) Saysell is incorrect in his assumptions.

As for some of your other statements please consider the following:

- Our project is not a conservation threat as there is no present conservation concern on sumer run steelhead in the Skeena. Please refer to Mr. White's info or the article by Mr. Hooton in last year's Wild Salmon and Trout. Unfortunately there are no scientific reports!? The fall fishery however may kill over 1000 steelhead (B. Hooton 1987). Skeena steelhead have been in excess of MELP requirements since 1994, even the most threatened stocks such as Sustut have surpassed their estimates of MSY.

Perhaps their science is suspect?

- The MSY (maximum sustainable yield) for the Bulkley from MELP info is 8,061 not 24,000 as you have stated. The total estimated adult production at capacity is 29,939 including the lower Bulkley below Moricetown and the Suskwa and other tributaries.

- Wild steelhead are open for retention in numerous fisheries including lower Skeena, Kalum, Copper, Lakelse and other lower Skeena tributaries. These rivers also have summer and fall runs that are subject to retention in these fisheries.

- Upper Skeena and Bulkley steelhead do not spawn in April and May but in May and June. Water temprature is the trigger and has to reach 5 - 6 degrees before it all happens. The water temprature is currently 0 - 1 degree.The fisheries you should be concerned about about may be any coastal river or island river where they are presently fishing as these fish will be spawning in April. The fish coming into these rivers now are closer to spawning than the stocks we are sampling.

- Bait was recommeded by MELP (Ministry of Environment) as the preferred method and their data suggests that it does not kill more fish. Perhaps Mr. Saysell should check his "science". If you would like reference to pertinent studies I will be more than happy to supply them but they are available through MELP .

- The fear mongering regarding Indians killing thousands of steelhead is just that, fear mongering. Do you really think they feel better about thousands of anglers catching and dragging around thousands of steelhead for fun while stomping over Pink, Chinook and Chum redds in our spawning streams?. Someone is not talking to First Nations but using them in a political game. We are in partnership with the Wet'Suwet'en Fisheries on this project to follow up on their tagging program and to actually try to learn something about steelhead and our fisheries. Not guess, suppose or presuppose what the information gathered will be used for. If we all agree on the data and share the information we will be moving forward towards proper resource management. . .

-Tight Lines,

Gord Wadley

(Ed. Note: Mr. Wadley is coordinator of the Bulkely fishing project.)

Dear Mr. Hume:

I apologize for the delay in responding to your website piece on our Bulkley/Morice steelhead project. Quite frankly, I haven't had the stomach to respond. In the past I have read your Vancouver Sun and National Post articles with interest, and I recently read your book "River of the Angry Moon" and thoroughly enjoyed it. I was therefore stunned to see what I interpret to be tabloid journalism appearing on your website.

As I'm sure you are aware, we are using the same methodology (the government) has used for years in collecting population information regarding fish. I can only speculate regarding why this community-based, primarily volunteer project has been put under such scrutiny. We have been accused in particular of wanting the information to support a retention fishery. You are no doubt also aware that the Steelhead Society of B.C. does not support a retention fishery, and our branch has no private agenda in this regard, in spite of what Mr. Joe Saysell says. Mr. Saysell's other remarks do not even warrant a response.

Gord Wadley, our project coordinator, has addressed many of the scientific concerns you and the other "critics" raised in the article, and I see no point in repeating them. The non-scientific information you should have is that the Bulkley Valley Branch is the main proponent of the project, and. . . the anglers are all volunteers, with the exception of the project coordinator. The common thread among the group is a passion for the local rivers and the fish in them, and a genuine concern for the resource. I don't know how to emphasize enough to you that this project was conceived and developed with sincerity and with the sole intention of gaining information about the steelhead population. . . Have you bothered to ask yourself why the members of a branch of the Steelhead Society, who supported and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Wild Steelhead Campaign, would want to intentionally harm wild steelhead?

Give us some credit, please.

Sincerely,

-Mary Lou Burleigh/Chairperson,/Bulkley Valley Branch SSBC

(Ed. Note: This letter, and the preceding one, refer to an article in the April edition, which can be read by looking in the back issues section. We see no reason to change the editorial stance we took then, in which we condemn the project as misguided and environmentally damaging.)

{E-mail letters may be edited for clarity, taste and brevity. It is understood they express the opinions of the writers, not the editors.}