YUKON WILDLIFE ACT
PROPOSED REGULATION CHANGES | 2015-2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2
SUBMISSION AND REVIEW PROCESS TO ADVANCE PROPOSED CHANGES TO REGULATIONS UNDER THE YUKON WILDLIFE ACT........................................................ 3
PROPOSAL 1: MOTORIZED VEHICLE USE IN GMZ 5 ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 4
PROPOSAL 2: PROHIBIT USE AND POSSESSION OF UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES WHILE HUNTING WILDLIFE .................................................................................... 6
PROPOSAL 3: FEE INCREASE FOR MOOSE AND CARIBOU SEALS ................................................................................................................................................................. 7
PROPOSAL 4: ALIGN SEASON DATES FOR HART RIVER CARIBOU HERD GAME MANAGEMENT SUBZONES WITH OTHER YUKON WOODLAND CARIBOU HERDS .... 8
PROPOSAL 5: PERMIT HUNT AUTHORIZATION FOR DALL’S SHEEP IN GAME MANAGEMENT ZONE 7 (EAST) ........................................................................................10
PROPOSAL 6: STREAMLINE SPECIAL GUIDING LICENCE APPLICATION PROCESS, ADD AN ALLOCATION FOR BISON TO LIST OF ELIGIBLE SPECIES ......................... 12
PROPOSAL 7: WOOD BISON – SPECIAL HUNT FOR RECOGNIZED ORGANIZATIONS OR SCHOOLS ...........................................................................................................14
PROPOSAL 8: PROPOSAL TO OPEN BISON HUNTING FOR BOW HUNTING ................................................................................................................................................16
PROPOSAL 9: MODERNIZE STANDARDS FOR ARCHERY EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................................................................................ 17
MANAGEMENT OF FISHERIES AT CAMPGROUND LAKES ..............................................................................................................................................................................19
PROPOSAL 10: FOX LAKE – CHANGE FROM GENERAL WATERS TO SPECIAL MANAGEMENT WATERS G ............................................................................................... 20
PROPOSAL 11: FRENCHMAN LAKE – CHANGE CATCH AND POSSESSION LIMIT FOR LAKE TROUT IN FRENCHMAN LAKE TO ZERO ..................................................... 22
PROPOSAL 12: KUSAWA LAKE – CHANGE FROM GENERAL WATERS TO CONSERVATION WATERS ....................................................................................................... 24
PROPOSAL 13: TWIN LAKES – CHANGE CATCH AND POSSESSION LIMIT FOR LAKE TROUT IN TWIN LAKES (EAST TWIN AND WEST TWIN) TO ZERO...................... 26
PROPOSAL 14: CAFN: FISHING CLOSURE AT TOWER BAY ON DEZADEASH LAKE..................................................................................................................................... 28
PROPOSAL 15: CARMACKS MOOSE HUNT (GMS 5-22, 5-23, 5-24 AND 5-26)................................................................................................................................................ 29
2
WWW.YFWMB.CA
SUBMISSION AND REVIEW PROCESS TO ADVANCE PROPOSED CHANGES
SUBMISSION AND REVIEW PROCESS TO ADVANCE PROPOSED CHANGES
TO REGULATIONS UNDER THE YUKON WILDLIFE ACT
YUKON FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD
3
PROPOSAL 1: MOTORIZED VEHICLE USE IN GAME MANAGEMENT ZONE 5
PROPOSAL 1: MOTORIZED VEHICLE USE IN GAME MANAGEMENT ZONE 5
What is the proposal?
•
Amend the Wildlife Regulation to include the use of a motorized vehicle to retrieve and transport bison where harvested outside of
designated routes in five Game Management Subzones (GMS) (5-34, 5-36, 5-37, 5-38, 5-39).
Why is the change proposed?
•
This change is proposed to improve bison harvesting opportunities in the early part of the season.
o Snowmobiles are currently permitted for hunting and transport of bison in GMS 5-34, 5-36, 5-37, 5-38 and 5-39 between
November 1 and March 31. However, hunters have indicated that snowmobile access can be a challenge for bison hunting during
the early season when snow cover is limited.
o In these GMS, motorized vehicles including ORV’s, are currently restricted to the routes permitted in the Wildlife Regulation
section 9(1)(a-k) for the purpose of hunting and transporting big game. Motorized vehicles are also restricted to designated
routes in the September1 to October31 extended season within the 3km Alaska Highway bison hunting corridor.
o This regulation will enable the use of a motorized vehicle 1 outside of the permitted routes for the explicit purpose of retrieval
and transport of a harvested bison, to the nearest permitted route. Similar transport provisions have been applied to the use of
snowmobiles in the adjacent Skeena Region in BC for Management Units that are closed to the use of snowmobiles for the
purposes of hunting.
Who proposed the change?
•
1
Department of Environment, Yukon government
The Motor Vehicles Act defines “motor vehicle” as a vehicle that is designed to be self-propelled in any manner except solely by muscular power
4
WWW.YFWMB.CA
PROPOSAL 1: MOTORIZED VEHICLE USE IN GMZ 5
PROPOSAL 1: MOTORIZED VEHICLE USE IN GMZ 5
YUKON FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD
5
PROPOSAL 2: PROHIBIT USE AND POSSESSION OF UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES WHILE HUNTING WILDLIFE
PROPOSAL 2: PROHIBIT USE AND POSSESSION OF UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES WHILE HUNTING WILDLIFE
What is the proposal?
•
To prohibit the use and possession of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) while hunting wildlife, unless authorized under the Wildlife
Act. A UAV is defined as any remotely guided airborne vehicle.
Why is the change proposed?
•
The use of UAVs for locating and hunting wildlife effectively confers the same advantage as locating wildlife from aircraft, and may in
fact be more advantageous as a hunter could already be on the ground when a game species is located.
•
The use of UAVs is in direct contravention of the “fair chase” philosophy held by most North American natural resource agencies and
where, in Yukon, there is a 48-hour prohibition from hunting wildlife after having spotting it from an aircraft. This change is required to
ensure there is a lack of ambiguity specifically regarding the use of UAVs for hunting purposes, which is relevant for both the hunting
public and law enforcement officials.
•
Other jurisdictions have already prohibited the use of UAVs for hunting, including Alaska, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. This proposal
aims to prohibit any future use of UAVs for hunting purposes proactively, rather than reacting to a situation that may occur.
Who proposed the change?
•
6
Department of Environment, Yukon Government
WWW.YFWMB.CA
PROPOSAL 3: FEE INCREASE FOR MOOSE AND CARIBOU SEALS
PROPOSAL 3: FEE INCREASE FOR MOOSE AND CARIBOU SEALS
What is the proposal?
•
To increase seal fees for moose and caribou from $5.00 to $10.00 for licenced hunters.
Why is the change proposed?
•
Yukon government (YG) accepted a November, 2014 recommendation from the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board (YFWMB)
to increase the fees for moose and caribou seals. The proposed increase would bring these fees in line with other Yukon big game
species such as sheep, goat, elk and bison.
•
When the recommendation was accepted, YG also agreed to investigate a means by which government may transfer the additional
funds to the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Trust Fund (YFWET). The fund was created pursuant to chapter 27 of the Umbrella
Final Agreement, and, since it’s founding in 1995, YFWET has contributed toward a wide variety of projects that have directly related to
the enhancement, restoration and protection of fish and wildlife and their habitats in the Yukon.
•
Seal fees in the Yukon the lowest across Canada and there is a sentiment that fees at this level undervalues Yukon wildlife. The
proposed increase in seal fees could therefore result in a small source of revenue that could be directed toward conservation projects.
Who proposed the change?
•
Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board, Department of Environment, Yukon government
YUKON FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD
7
PROPOSAL 4: ALIGN SEASON DATES FOR HART RIVER CARIBOU HERD GAME MANAGEMENT SUBZONES WITH OTHER YUKON WOODLAND CARIBOU HERDS
PROPOSAL 4: ALIGN SEASON DATES FOR HART RIVER CARIBOU HERD GAME MANAGEMENT SUBZONES WITH OTHER
YUKON WOODLAND CARIBOU HERDS
What is the proposal?
•
To change the caribou season close date in all or part of five Game Management Subzones (GMS) (2-16, 2-23, 2-27, 2-28, and 2-39) to October 31
from January 31.
Why is the change proposed?
•
This change would align the licenced hunting season in these overlap GMS with the general
woodland caribou season end date of October 31. If the migratory Porcupine Caribou Herd (PCH)
move into the area in sufficient numbers to negate conservation risks to the Hart River caribou herd
(HRCH), the Minister may open licenced hunting of PCH until the season close date of January 31. Any
opening would occur in accordance with the Yukon Wildlife Regulations and the Porcupine Caribou
Harvest Management Plan.
•
These GMS have a season close date of January 31 to provide hunting opportunities for licenced
hunters when the PCH occupy this area. Since 2006, the PCH has not migrated into these GMS
requiring a Ministerial Emergency Closure Order to protect the HRCH, a small herd of approximately
2200 caribou. In the past individual animals have been mistakenly harvested as Porcupine Caribou.
•
Enacting this measure will result in fewer instances of Emergency Closure Orders, a provision of
the Wildlife Act that is intended for “emergencies” rather than known management issues.
Emergency closures have become a regular occurrence since 2006 and are frustrating to hunters
and challenging for managers as they require significant communication efforts to ensure that all
harvesters are aware of the closure when the PCH caribou are not present.
8
WWW.YFWMB.CA
PROPOSAL 4: ALIGN SEASON DATES FOR HART RIVER CARIBOU HERD GAME MANAGEMENT SUBZONES WITH OTHER YUKON WOODLAND CARIBOU HERDS
Who proposed the change?
•
Yukon government; Porcupine Caribou Management Board, Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board
YUKON FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD
9
PROPOSAL 5: PERMIT HUNT AUTHORIZATION FOR DALL’S SHEEP IN GAME MANAGEMENT ZONE 7 (EAST)
PROPOSAL 5: PERMIT HUNT AUTHORIZATION FOR DALL’S SHEEP IN GAME MANAGEMENT ZONE 7 (EAST)
What is the proposal?
•
To place five of the remaining Game Management Subzones (GMS) (713, 717, 720, 724, and 726) in Game Management Zone 7 East on
permit for Dall’s sheep hunting, and initially setting an allotment of 25 permits to be distributed across these five subzones with the final
allocation to each subzone to be determined by the Minister.
Why is the change proposed?
•
Historically, in the area south of Whitehorse, accessible sheep hunting Game Management Subzones (GMS) have been placed on permit and
less accessible GMS have remained open. Over the last 10 years, sheep harvest rates by resident licenced harvesters, for 3 of the 5 remaining
open GMS in Zone 7(E) have slowly increased and are now at, or exceeding, 3.5% of the adult sheep population without accounting for Nonresident or First Nation harvest. For the GMS where residents are on permit and non-residents are on quota, harvest is within the sustainable
level identified in the Yukon Sheep Management Guidelines.
•
Within this area, the outfitting concession resumed operation in 2013 after a hiatus of 15 years. In 2014, the total harvest within this area was
at the sustainable rate of 4% when considering all sources of harvest mortality. While most GMS are currently on Permit for licenced resident
hunters, an annual non-resident sheep quota has been established for the five remaining open GMS, to begin in the 2016 harvest season.
Consistent with the Outfitter Quota Guidelines, resident sheep hunters should be on permit where non-resident hunters are on quota. This
approach was applied to GMS 7-14 and 7-16 when sheep permits were established in 2011. Results for the 2015 season, as of October 26, 2015,
the licenced sheep harvest is 34 sheep, suggesting the 2015 harvest rate is likely to be above the 4% of the adult sheep population.
•
Permit number threshold may be varied by the Minister to ensure sustainable harvest based on sheep population information (except
GMS 7-23 & 7-25 which are managed through a Commissioner’s Agreement). For example, if sheep populations grow to support
additional harvest, permit numbers may be adjusted to increase opportunities within individual GMS.
Who proposed the change?
•
10
Department of Environment, Yukon government;
WWW.YFWMB.CA
PROPOSAL 5: PERMIT HUNT AUTHORIZATION FOR DALL’S SHEEP IN GAME MANAGEMENT ZONE 7 (EAST)
YUKON FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD
11
PROPOSAL 6: STREAMLINE SPECIAL GUIDING LICENCE APPLICATION PROCESS, ADD AN ALLOCATION FOR BISON TO LIST OF ELIGIBLE SPECIES
PROPOSAL 6: STREAMLINE SPECIAL GUIDING LICENCE APPLICATION PROCESS, ADD AN ALLOCATION FOR BISON TO
LIST OF ELIGIBLE SPECIES
What is the proposal?
•
Add 50 additional special guiding permits, specifically for bison, with the actual number to be determined by the Minister, starting
with an initial allotment of 25 permits under the Wildlife Regulation schedule D.
•
Amend schedule D of the Wildlife Regulations to enable the Minister to specify which species may be hunted under a special guiding
licence, and to limit special guided hunting in areas where resident hunters are also limited.
•
Change the special guiding permit application so resident hunters would apply for either of (A)Bison/Black Bear/Wolf/Coyote or (B)
Moose or Caribou/Black Bear/Wolf/Coyote in any one year, but not both.
o For applications in (B) the permit would provide the opportunity for a non-resident hunter to harvest either a moose or
caribou but not both. Once the first of either a moose or caribou is harvested, the seals for both species would be void.
Why is the change proposed?
12
•
Since 2006, the 100 special guiding licences issued annually on a first come first-served basis have been fully subscribed in advance of the
start of fall hunting season. Since 2009 all special guiding licences were taken within the first few weeks of April and by 2015 all 100 permits
were subscribed within 2.5 hours.
•
Recommendations to include bison as a species that could be special guided (2012/2013) and to improve the administration of special
guiding licences (2013/2014) were accepted by the Minister. In both cases, however, the details regarding the number of permits to be
provided and how they were to be administered were not part of the recommendation.
•
An YFWMB and Yukon government working group reviewed Special Guiding administration and recommended an upper threshold of 50
additional special guiding permits, specifically for bison, with the actual number to be determined by the Minister. The working group
further recommended starting with an initial allotment of 25 permits for bison in concert with monitoring to evaluate whether
additional opportunities could be supported. These would be in addition to the currently established 100 permits for other species. The
working group recommended changes to the Special Guiding harvest opportunity with the intent to reduce pressure on moose and
WWW.YFWMB.CA
PROPOSAL 6: STREAMLINE SPECIAL GUIDING LICENCE APPLICATION PROCESS, ADD AN ALLOCATION FOR BISON TO LIST OF ELIGIBLE SPECIES
caribou while assisting with meeting bison population objectives. The Change to the existing permits that include moose and caribou
would see resident hunters apply for either of two permit options, one that includes bison and a second that includes moose or caribou.
The change to the second option (B - above) is that the permit would provide the opportunity for a non-resident hunter to harvest
either a moose or caribou but not both. In this case, once the first of either a moose or caribou is harvested, the seals for both species are
considered invalid or void.
•
To administer these special guiding provisions the regulation will need to be amended to enable the designation of specific wildlife
species or Game Management Subzones on a special guiding permit as this is currently not in place. The intent is to also limit special
guiding in areas where resident hunting opportunities are also limited.
•
A proposed lottery could be similar to the PHA draw process with the exception that it would have to happen earlier (during April) for
species that have early harvest season dates. Applicants would be notified early in May if they have received a special guiding licence for
that year. Similar to the current process, no returns of Special Guiding licences will be provided for. However, applications could be
withdrawn during the application period. Similar to existing lottery processes, unsuccessful hunters would be eligible to apply again and be
weighted in subsequent years, until they receive a special guiding licence. The regulation which establishes one special guiding licence per
eligible non-resident hunter every three years would continue to apply.
Who proposed the change?
•
Department of Environment, Yukon Government;
YUKON FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD
13
PROPOSAL 7: WOOD BISON – SPECIAL HUNT FOR RECOGNIZED ORGANIZATIONS OR SCHOOLS
PROPOSAL 7: WOOD BISON – SPECIAL HUNT FOR RECOGNIZED ORGANIZATIONS OR SCHOOLS
What is the proposal?
•
To enable Ministerial discretion to issue a permit to a special organization or a licenced hunter participating in a school hunt to apply
to take more than one bison each hunting season. This opportunity would occur on a case by case basis and under special
circumstances and criteria where season dates, number and sex of bison are strictly defined and other conditions applied as
determined by the Minster.
o Special Organizational Hunt: Recipients of these permits would be organizations recognized by the Minister as being in need of
this special opportunity. This change would enable a hunter or hunters to take multiple bison on behalf of a recognized organization
during a special harvest season. The special harvest season dates, sex ratio and number of bison available for harvest by each
successful applicant would be determined by the Minister upon application. An extended season would occur following the
“regular” hunting season which ends March 31 (See Criteria below). Criteria will be for non-profit activities with a primary focus on
those in need for traditional food support.
o School Hunt: The Minister may authorize a second bison permit for a licensed hunter who harvests a bison and donates the meat
to a hunt organized and led by a recognized school program.
•
Criteria
o Special harvest season would occur only in years where the annual bison harvest target 1 was not met and would occur immediately
following the close of the regular hunting season. The hunt may be directed to specific locations
o Requirement to identify experienced harvester(s) in the application or in advance of the hunt. This measure is not intended to result
in harvesters forfeiting personal opportunities in the regular bison season.
o Provide a written plan for the distribution of the proceeds of the harvest (meat, head, hide) and to ensure that the organization has
demonstrated capacity to address proper care and handling of meat
o An application would be required and reviewed by the Minister and hunters would need to adhere to specific conditions, reporting
requirements and regulations
*The Bison Technical Team will recommend annual harvest targets for confirmation by the Minister.
1
The Bison Technical Team will recommend annual harvest targets for confirmation by the Minister.
14
WWW.YFWMB.CA
PROPOSAL 7: WOOD BISON – SPECIAL HUNT FOR RECOGNIZED ORGANIZATIONS OR SCHOOLS
PROPOSAL 7: WOOD BISON – SPECIAL HUNT FOR RECOGNIZED ORGANIZATIONS OR SCHOOLS
Why is the change proposed?
•
Bison harvest from the Aishihik wood bison herd averages 147 bison per year. Population modelling for this herd suggests that
increased harvest, specifically of cows, is required to limit further growth. When annual harvest targets are not achieved or the sex-ratio
is skewed, an additional harvest undertaken by an organization with the ability to harvest multiple bison, including a focus on cows, can
support overall harvest objectives. The special harvest season opportunities under such an organizational hunt during the spring season
will enable all Yukoners to harvest bison during the regular hunting season and provide for a separation with the opportunity for nonprofit groups to harvest additional bison where annual harvest objectives have not been met.
•
Where harvest approaches threshold levels, adjustments in the post-season harvest will enable a measured approach to ensuring
sustainable harvest practices are maintained. In addition to managing for post-season harvest numbers, a focus on specific groups or
problematic areas will benefit Yukoners and support bison plan objectives. It will also contribute to overall bison management by
efficient and focused use of harvest to achieve population stability that can be better managed as the annual harvest objective is
approached.
•
Additionally, it is envisioned that both special organizational hunts and school hunts will allow a wide segment of the community to
participate in unique on-the-land experiences of bison hunts. Enabling a hunter to apply for a second bison permit in the same hunting
season as they participate in a school hunt will help to ensure that school groups continue to get seasoned bison hunters assisting in
their programs, and that those hunters do not need to forego their own bison hunting opportunities to do so.
Who proposed the change?
•
Department of Environment, Yukon government;
YUKON FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD
15
PROPOSAL 8: PROPOSAL TO OPEN BISON HUNTING FOR BOW HUNTING
PROPOSAL 8: PROPOSAL TO OPEN BISON HUNTING FOR BOW HUNTING
What is the proposal?
•
To permit hunting of bison with bows – similar to approach currently permitted in Alaska – can require the use of back up rifle.
Why is the change proposed?
•
Improved technology, keeping pace with other jurisdictions
Who proposed the change?
•
16
Whitehorse Archery Club
WWW.YFWMB.CA
PROPOSAL 9: MODERNIZE STANDARDS FOR ARCHERY EQUIPMENT
PROPOSAL 9: MODERNIZE STANDARDS FOR ARCHERY EQUIPMENT
What is the proposal?
•
Proposal to amend section 31 (d) of the Wildlife Regulations, to better define permitted archery gear to hunt big game other than a
Wood Bison. The proposed regulation would convey the following (similar to Alaska regulations):
o A bow is considered, for the purposes of this regulation, to include a Longbow, Recurve and a Compound bow.
o A bow must have a peak draw weight of at least 18 kg (39.7 lbs) when hunting deer, wolf, coyote, wolverine, black bear, sheep, and
caribou with archery equipment. A bow must have a peak draw weight of at least 22.5kg (49.6lbs) when hunting mountain goat,
moose, elk, grizzly bear and muskox 1 with archery equipment.
o For all big game, arrows (including heads) must weigh at least 300 grains, and measure at least 510 mm (20 in) in length. Arrows
must be fitted with a broadhead that measures at least 22mm (0.87 in) in width and has at least two sharp cutting edges.
Broadheads may be fixed, replaceable or mechanical/retractable.
o There are no standards for archery equipment for hunting small game.
Why is the change proposed?
•
This change is required as the Yukon bow hunting equipment regulations have not been amended in over 20 years. During this time,
there have been significant advancements in archery technologies related to bow and arrow design, construction and materials.
Further, archery as a hunting method is growing in popularity across North America, and is likely to become more popular in Yukon.
•
A regulation change would recognize current technologies and legitimize current gear used by today’s archery hunters. It would also
allow greater access to Yukon bow hunting by anyone of smaller stature.
There is currently no open season for muskox, but the species is listed as big game in the Wildlife Regulations, so it would be included in this list. Bison are currently excluded from
bow hunting.
1
YUKON FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD
17
Who proposed the change?
•
18
Department of Environment, Yukon Government;
WWW.YFWMB.CA
MANAGEMENT OF FISHERIES AT GOVERNMENT CAMPGROUND LAKES
MANAGEMENT OF FISHERIES AT GOVERNMENT CAMPGROUND LAKES
Campground lakes are attractive destinations with high angling
effort
•
•
•
•
•
Campgrounds provide attractive, government managed, attractive amenities (including accommodation) and easy lake access to anglers.
Angling effort at campground lakes in Yukon is uniformly high
Angling effort remains high on lakes with campgrounds even when harvest success is
low
Unsustainable harvest pushes lake trout populations to depletion
Yukon resident angling licence purchase has increased steadily over the last 10 years
Higher campground use equals higher fishing pressure
•
•
•
•
YG campgrounds are increasingly popular, particularly among Yukoners
Registered campground nights 2007-2013 steadily increasing
Where lake trout harvest exceeds sustainable levels, lake trout populations decline
Smaller lakes are more susceptible to depletion due to overharvest because of relatively smaller sustainable production.
Fisheries surveys show a pattern of unsustainably high harvest
•
•
•
Native lake trout populations on smaller lakes have become severely depleted (e.g. Snafu, Tarfu, Pine, West Twin)
Some larger lakes with campgrounds have depleted populations (e.g. Frenchman, Fox)
Larger campground lakes now showing warning signs of unsustainable native lake trout stocks (e.g. Kusawa Lake)
Additional monitoring is required for other campground lakes
•
New monitoring methods have improved our ability to detect change in lake trout population status; these tools will allow us to respond to
declines and recoveries in a timely and effective way, to ensure long-term sustainability
•
Fisheries management priorities are to update population and harvest information on other campground lakes of concern
YUKON FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD
19
PROPOSAL 10: FOX LAKE – CHANGE FROM GENERAL WATERS TO SPECIAL MANAGEMENT WATERS G
PROPOSAL 10: FOX LAKE – CHANGE FROM GENERAL WATERS TO SPECIAL MANAGEMENT WATERS G
What is the proposal?
•
Change Fox Lake designation from General Waters to Special Management Waters G:
From Current regulations (General Waters)
Species
Daily
limit
Possession Size limit
limit
Lake trout
3
6
Only one > 65cm
Arctic grayling
5
10
Only one >40cm
Northern pike
5
10
Only one >75cm
Barbed hooks permitted
To Proposed regulations (Special Management Waters G)
Species
Daily
limit
Possession
limit
Size limit
Lake trout
1
1
None >65cm
Arctic grayling
4
4
None 40 – 48cm, only one >48cm
Northern pike
4
4
None 75 – 105cm, only one >105cm
Barbless hooks required
20
WWW.YFWMB.CA
PROPOSAL 10: FOX LAKE – CHANGE FROM GENERAL WATERS TO SPECIAL MANAGEMENT WATERS G
Why is the change proposed?
•
Multiple lines of evidence point to a depleted lake trout population in Fox Lake. Recent netting surveys show very low lake trout
abundance. Angler harvest levels exceed the sustainable limit under current regulations. Angler effort has been historically high and has
increased substantially in recent years, while angler success rates are poor. Under current regulations, the depleted lake trout
population in Fox Lake is likely to decline further.
•
There is direction to limit the number of regulatory “bins” or categories under which lakes are managed. Changing Fox Lake to Special
Management Waters G to achieve the lake trout management objective will also change regulations for northern pike and Arctic
grayling. Angler Harvest survey data suggest the impact of these changes on angler harvest opportunities would be minimal.
•
A regulation change to catch, possession and length limits for lake trout on Fox Lake would be followed by monitoring of the lake trout
population through time to assess recovery status. Evidence of recovery to a level that could sustain additional harvest would be
grounds for considering increased harvest opportunities.
Who proposed the change?
•
Department of Environment, Yukon Government;
YUKON FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD
21
PROPOSAL 11: FRENCHMAN LAKE – CHANGE CATCH AND POSSESSION LIMIT FOR LAKE TROUT TO ZERO
PROPOSAL 11: FRENCHMAN LAKE – CHANGE CATCH AND POSSESSION LIMIT FOR LAKE TROUT TO ZERO
What is the proposal?
•
Change Frenchman Lake designation from Conservation Waters to Special Management Waters K:
From Current regulations (Conservation Waters)
Species
Daily
limit
Possession
limit
Size limit
Lake trout
2
2
None 65 – 100cm, only one >
100cm
Arctic grayling
4
4
None 40 – 48cm, only one >48cm
Northern pike
4
4
None 75 – 105cm, only one >105cm
Barbless hooks required
To Proposed regulations (Special Management Waters K)
Species
Daily
limit
Lake trout
Possession
limit
Size limit
all lake trout must be released
Arctic grayling
2
2
None >40cm
Northern pike
4
4
None >75cm
Barbless hooks required
Why is the change proposed?
•
22
Recent netting surveys show very low lake trout abundance. Angler harvest has
exceeded sustainable levels in the past. Current lake trout harvest is below optimal sustainable yield, but this is likely because of angler
WWW.YFWMB.CA
PROPOSAL 11: FRENCHMAN LAKE – CHANGE CATCH AND POSSESSION LIMIT FOR LAKE TROUT TO ZERO
difficulty in catching low numbers of lake trout. Angler effort has been very high in the past and has increased in recent years. Angler
success rates are poor and declining. Anglers report a decline in fishing quality. Under current regulations, angler harvest is expected
to maintain or worsen the depleted status of lake trout in Frenchman Lake.
•
There is direction to limit proliferation of regulatory “bins” under which lakes are managed. Changing Frenchman Lake to Special
Management Waters K to achieve the lake trout management objective will also change regulations for northern pike and Arctic
grayling. Angler Harvest survey data suggest the impact of these changes on angler harvest opportunities would be minimal.
•
A regulation change to catch, possession and length limits for lake trout on Frenchman Lake would be followed by monitoring of the
lake trout population through time to assess recovery status. Evidence of recovery to a level that could sustain additional harvest
would be grounds for considering increased harvest opportunities.
Who proposed the change?
•
Department of Environment, Yukon government;
YUKON FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD
23
PROPOSAL 12: KUSAWA LAKE – CHANGE FROM GENERAL WATERS TO CONSERVATION WATERS
PROPOSAL 12: KUSAWA LAKE – CHANGE FROM GENERAL WATERS TO CONSERVATION WATERS
What is the proposal?
•
Change Kusawa Lake designation from General Waters to Conservation Waters:
From current regulations (General Waters)
Species
Daily
limit
Possession
limit
Size limit
Lake trout
3
6
Only one > 65cm
Arctic grayling
5
10
Only one >40cm
Northern pike
5
10
Only one >75cm
Barbed hooks permitted
To proposed regulations (Conservation Waters)
Species
Daily
limit
Possession
limit
Size limit
Lake trout
2
2
None 65 – 100cm, only one >100cm
Arctic grayling
4
4
None 40 – 48cm, only one >48cm
Northern pike
4
4
None 75 – 105cm, only one >105cm
Barbless hooks required
Why is the change proposed?
•
24
Several early warning signs tend to present themselves before a lake shifts
from a sustainable fishery with good fishing to an unsustainable one with
WWW.YFWMB.CA
PROPOSAL 12: KUSAWA LAKE – CHANGE FROM GENERAL WATERS TO CONSERVATION WATERS
declining fish stocks and poor fishing. While the density of lake trout in Kusawa is currently high, other signs suggest an impending
fisheries decline:
o increasing angler effort – more than doubled since 1990
o decreasing angler catch rates – halved since 2000
o summer harvest is very close to the upper sustainable limit and has exceeded it in the past. Summer harvest estimates are a
minimum, as they do not include fall, winter or subsistence harvest. Total annual harvest may be exceeding sustainable limits.
o larger trout are harvested out of proportion to their abundance in the population and there are fewer large lake trout in the
population than expected. This means there are fewer large breeding trout to maintain the population over the long term.
•
While some of the warning signs of decline have been highlighted by the 2014 Angler Harvest and netting surveys, others have been
present for some time. A regulation change from General Waters to Conservation Waters was identified as the best management
option to address the high angling pressure at Kusawa in the 2010 Status of Yukon Fisheries report (p. 54).
Who proposed the change?
•
Department of Environment, Yukon government;
YUKON FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD
25
PROPOSAL 13: TWIN LAKES (EAST TWIN AND WEST TWIN) – CHANGE CATCH AND POSSESSION LIMIT FOR LAKE TROUT TO ZERO
PROPOSAL 13: TWIN LAKES (EAST TWIN AND WEST TWIN) – CHANGE CATCH AND POSSESSION LIMIT FOR LAKE TROUT
TO ZERO
What is the proposal?
•
Change Twin Lakes designation from Special Management Waters C to Special Management Waters K:
From current regulations (Special Management Waters C)
Species
Daily
limit
Possession
limit
Size limit
Lake trout
1
1
None >65cm
Arctic grayling
4
4
None >40cm
Northern pike
4
4
None >75cm
Barbless hooks required
To proposed regulations (Special Management Waters K)
Species
Daily
limit
Lake trout
Possessi
on limit
Size limit
all lake trout must be released
Arctic grayling
2
2
None >40cm
Northern pike
4
4
None >75cm
Barbless hooks required
26
WWW.YFWMB.CA
PROPOSAL 13: TWIN LAKES (EAST TWIN AND WEST TWIN) – CHANGE CATCH AND POSSESSION LIMIT FOR LAKE TROUT TO ZERO
Why is the change proposed?
•
Multiple lines of evidence point to a depleted lake trout population in West Twin Lake. Past and current netting surveys show very low
lake trout abundance. Angler effort is very high and harvest is more than twice the sustainable limit under current regulations. Angler
success rate is poor, with reports that it has declined over time. Under current regulations, the depleted lake trout population in West
Twin Lake is likely to decline further.
•
Past and current netting surveys also show a depleted lake trout population in East Twin Lake. Although East Twin Lake is slightly less
depleted than West Twin Lake, all available evidence indicates increasing angler effort and decreasing success, as anglers are diverting
effort to East Twin Lake from West Twin Lake. Applying new regulations to West Twin only would result in further diversion of harvest
pressure to East Twin. East Twin is also a smaller lake and less capable of sustaining high lake trout harvest. Under current regulations,
the depleted lake trout population in East Twin Lake is likely to decline further.
Who proposed the change?
•
Department of Environment, Yukon government;
YUKON FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD
27
PROPOSAL 14: CAFN: FISHING CLOSURE AT TOWER BAY ON DEZADEASH LAKE
PROPOSAL 14: CAFN: FISHING CLOSURE AT TOWER BAY ON DEZADEASH LAKE
What is the proposal?
•
Closure of all fishing in Tower Bay from July 1st to August 15th of each year.
Why is the change proposed?
•
Champagne/Aishihik First Nations brought forward concerns about Lake Trout and Whitefish populations in 2000. These concerns stem
from a noticeable decrease in subsistence catches for Lake Trout and Whitefish and an increase in the number of Suckers that are
caught in our subsistence fishery. Lake Trout congregate in the cooler waters from inflowing creeks because the temperatures in the
lake increase to levels above what is considered optimal for Lake Trout.
•
Research shows that Lake Trout congregate in one area during the hottest part of the summer, making them very susceptible to any
type of fishing pressure.
•
•
CAFN also feels it is unethical to fish Lake Trout when they are congregated in a small area, temperature stressed, and easily accessed.
•
Champane/Aishihik has indicated this closure would apply to the subsistence fishery to protect stocks but must apply to all other users.
A closure from July 1st to August 15th would offer protection to the majority of trout during the warmest part of the year, while still
allowing for fishing in other parts of the lake and in Tower Bay outside of the closure times.
Who proposed the change?
•
28
Champagne and Aishihik First Nations (CAFN)
WWW.YFWMB.CA
PROPOSAL 15: CARMACKS MOOSE HUNT
PROPOSAL 15: CARMACKS MOOSE HUNT
What is the proposal?
•
Introduce a limited permit hunt for bull moose in four Game Management Subzones (GMS)(5-22, 5-23, 5-24 and 5-26).
Why is the change proposed?
•
These areas were closed to moose hunting in 1989 after the 1987 census by
Department of Environment showed very low moose numbers (50/1000 sq.
km). The goal of the closure was to allow moose to increase to at least
Yukon averages.
•
More recent Department of Environment census data (2007) show a
healthy population of moose with an overall density estimate of 129/1000
sq. km. in this area.
•
A permit hunt for this area can be developed that would enable a
controlled hunt that can be carefully managed within the sustainable
harvest level for this population of moose.
Who proposed the change?
•
Yukon Fish and Game Association
YUKON FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD
29