Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fishing Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 09-12-2011, 01:47 PM
horsetrader horsetrader is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 4,018
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greylynx View Post
Bass stockings have failed to succeed in Alberta, and yet there are calls to stock the fish.

Why don't you fish experts take a course in Limnology, and then we can argue.
If you say that Bass stocking failed in Alberta then you must believe that Bow stocking in alberta also failed
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 09-12-2011, 02:13 PM
avb3 avb3 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 7,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horsetrader View Post
It is a good thing that not all people in the world do not have your mind set.
If we always had to know the consequences of an action before we tried something we would be still living in the dark ages. No one will ever know what the total outcome of a situation will be but that does not mean we just stop. All we can do is keep the risks to a minimum.
Horsetrade, you and I obviously have a different value set when it comes to conservation.

Science backs me, opinion backs you.

Let's leave it at that, because I am sure you are as set in your point of view as I am in mine.

I'm just glad that the decision makers listen to conservation science first.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 09-12-2011, 02:23 PM
horsetrader horsetrader is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 4,018
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by avb3 View Post
Horsetrade, you and I obviously have a different value set when it comes to conservation.

Science backs me, opinion backs you.

Let's leave it at that, because I am sure you are as set in your point of view as I am in mine.

I'm just glad that the decision makers listen to conservation science first.
You say science backs you but you have failed to produce any facts of it.
And when you consider the number of species that have been introduced and some of the problems occurred I would thing the decision makers listened to people like me and for our sake it's a good thing. But you are entitled to your OPINION.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 09-12-2011, 02:26 PM
pickrel pat pickrel pat is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,268
Default

i agree 100% when it comes to bass stocking in alberta.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 09-12-2011, 02:27 PM
avb3 avb3 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 7,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horsetrader View Post
You say science backs you but you have failed to produce any facts of it.
And when you consider the number of species that have been introduced and some of the problems occurred I would thing the decision makers listened to people like me and for our sake it's a good thing. But you are entitled to your OPINION.
Horstrader, I have been at the table when the decisions are made for more years than I can count... I can guarantee you that science is the first consideration.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 09-12-2011, 02:31 PM
pickrel pat pickrel pat is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by avb3 View Post
horstrader, i have been at the table when the decisions are made for more years than i can count... I can guarantee you that science is the first consideration.
bam!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 09-12-2011, 04:06 PM
ORV's Avatar
ORV ORV is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vulcan County
Posts: 1,382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pickrel pat View Post
i agree 100% when it comes to bass stocking in alberta.
x10

orv.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 09-12-2011, 04:36 PM
mikeo2 mikeo2 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 538
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pickrel pat View Post
i agree 100% when it comes to bass stocking in alberta.
Agree with who? Whoever gets their way?
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 09-12-2011, 04:47 PM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horsetrader View Post
If you say that Bass stocking failed in Alberta then you must believe that Bow stocking in alberta also failed
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 09-12-2011, 04:56 PM
horsetrader horsetrader is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 4,018
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter View Post
The only reason i say that. Is Bass never survived as a self supported species.

and because of the fact they have to restock Bow every year it to was not a self supported species
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 09-12-2011, 05:11 PM
0liver's Avatar
0liver 0liver is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 446
Default

Honestly, Bass stocking would end up being mediocre at best...

Stocking Bow's has ended up being mediocre at best, and I think that we should take the millions spent in stocking ANY fish and put it into revamping Alberta's healthcare / education system... something we can actually gain from? Worse comes to worse just take the money and use it to revamp some of our successful walleye&pike lakes that are now failing so that they can have a better chance at spawning.. add some rip rap on shores, some rocks and such to the bottom of the lakes to allow for a better spawn.. etc etc

my 2 cents.
Oliver
__________________
Is it really fishing? Or wishing?

" There he stands, draped in more equipment than a telephone lineman, trying to outwit an organism with a brain no bigger than a breadcrumb, and getting licked in the process. ~Paul O'Neil, 1965 "
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 09-12-2011, 05:14 PM
horsetrader horsetrader is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 4,018
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by avb3 View Post
Horstrader, I have been at the table when the decisions are made for more years than I can count... I can guarantee you that science is the first consideration.
I'm sure if you were at the table as you say you would be able to produce some information other than something on the internet from Montana which was suppose to prove the hybridize, of Browns and Bulls and showed nothing.

You keep referring to all these scientific people that think the same way you do but still no proof is given.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 09-12-2011, 05:17 PM
yada yada is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 232
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 0liver View Post
Honestly, Bass stocking would end up being mediocre at best...

Stocking Bow's has ended up being mediocre at best, and I think that we should take the millions spent in stocking ANY fish and put it into revamping Alberta's healthcare / education system... something we can actually gain from? Worse comes to worse just take the money and use it to revamp some of our successful walleye&pike lakes that are now failing so that they can have a better chance at spawning.. add some rip rap on shores, some rocks and such to the bottom of the lakes to allow for a better spawn.. etc etc

my 2 cents.
Oliver
I totally agree!
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 09-12-2011, 05:27 PM
avb3 avb3 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 7,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horsetrader View Post
I'm sure if you were at the table as you say you would be able to produce some information other than something on the internet from Montana which was suppose to prove the hybridize, of Browns and Bulls and showed nothing.

You keep referring to all these scientific people that think the same way you do but still no proof is given.
Horsetrader, please read page 23 of the Status of Bull Trout report.

The sub-title is: "Limiting Factors" and then "Fish Species Introduction".

If you really want to get educated about Bull Trout, read all 61 pages.

If that is not enough of an education for you, I'll gladly provide more
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 09-12-2011, 05:58 PM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horsetrader View Post
The only reason i say that. Is Bass never survived as a self supported species.

and because of the fact they have to restock Bow every year it to was not a self supported species
While that may seem to make sense on the surface, I think you have to look a little deeper. There is no evidence of bass ever spawning in Alberta...the same can't be said about rainbows. I think you need to look at the causes of mortality and the spawning success for each species to get a bit more complete picture before making that comparison. Some of our southern reservoirs may be able to support a smallmouth population but I doubt there is a lake in Alberta suitable for largemouth.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 09-12-2011, 06:04 PM
mszomola mszomola is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 132
Default

I would be perfectly fine if someone put some smallmouth in Windermere . Then I'd be set , it would go with awesome largemouth fishery there and clear up all the sqauwfish
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 09-12-2011, 06:53 PM
greylynx greylynx is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horsetrader View Post
If you say that Bass stocking failed in Alberta then you must believe that Bow stocking in alberta also failed
As a matter of fact when the Bow was more oligotrophic, the trout population and size was quite small. When my uncle was training at Curry Barracks during WW2, he used to fish pools in the Bow with hand grenades. The fish were always few and small.

As the Bow turned into a eutrophic river in a very short period of time the fish population blossomed.

As the Bow turns more eutrophic over the coming years, you will see the trout go away and the pike and walleye being primary feeders.

In fact you can see the eutrophication of the Bow quite well beyond Carseland.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 09-12-2011, 06:56 PM
Jorg's Avatar
Jorg Jorg is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chestermere lake
Posts: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by avb3 View Post
Horsetrader, please read page 23 of the Status of Bull Trout report.

The sub-title is: "Limiting Factors" and then "Fish Species Introduction".

If you really want to get educated about Bull Trout, read all 61 pages.

If that is not enough of an education for you, I'll gladly provide more
I'm not sure what Bull troat have to do with Bass they thrive in different habitats
__________________
I like fish cause they taste good
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 09-12-2011, 07:00 PM
Jorg's Avatar
Jorg Jorg is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chestermere lake
Posts: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greylynx View Post
You will have to request documents and studies under the FOI rules from SRD.

Some documents are confidential.
I'll take that as a no.
__________________
I like fish cause they taste good
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 09-12-2011, 07:02 PM
Jorg's Avatar
Jorg Jorg is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chestermere lake
Posts: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by avb3 View Post
It is not just the issue of Bass; it is an issue of ANY introduced species.

We just don't know what the consequences are.

Why would you want to experiment with that?

Look the facts are that in many cases where there were introduced species, they have unintended consequences. Sometimes to the detriment of indigenous species.

Why are we so bent to insist on this experimentation?

Why not concentrate on what we have, and insure that the habitat is protected or enhanced, and work towards its well being?

In the end, it benefits all, including us anglers.
That sounds like a no also.
__________________
I like fish cause they taste good
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 09-12-2011, 07:05 PM
avb3 avb3 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 7,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorg View Post
I'm not sure what Bull troat have to do with Bass they thrive in different habitats
Have you read the whole thread?

The point has been made many time by myself and others, we *don't* know what the unintended consequences are of non-native plant, animal or fish introductions. That includes closed water bodies, because somehow fish that aren't suppose to be there always seem to find a way of doing so.

Heck, right here in my home town we have a trout pond with no egress or ingress.

How did that 8 lb pike get in there that was caught 2 years ago? Fat, sassy and decimating the stock trout.

So don't tell me anyone can guarantee that any introduced species can be controlled... they cant'

Besides, why spend money on a non-native fish when we have so many of our native fish that can use the help?
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 09-12-2011, 07:10 PM
avb3 avb3 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 7,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greylynx View Post
In fact you can see the eutrophication of the Bow quite well beyond Carseland.
No doubt assisted by nutrients caused by runoff from fertilization and livestock production.

The City of Calgary itself actually does a very good job on handling their sewage. I recall doing a field trip on the Bow, and the egress from the sewage plant had visibly less suspended material in it then the rest of the river.

Didn't smell either.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 09-12-2011, 07:10 PM
Jorg's Avatar
Jorg Jorg is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chestermere lake
Posts: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by avb3 View Post
Have you read the whole thread?

The point has been made many time by myself and others, we *don't* know what the unintended consequences are of non-native plant, animal or fish introductions. That includes closed water bodies, because somehow fish that aren't suppose to be there always seem to find a way of doing so.

Heck, right here in my home town we have a trout pond with no egress or ingress.

How did that 8 lb pike get in there that was caught 2 years ago? Fat, sassy and decimating the stock trout.

So don't tell me anyone can guarantee that any introduced species can be controlled... they cant'

Besides, why spend money on a non-native fish when we have so many of our native fish that can use the help?
I hear you but you only talk about the possible negatives --- what about the positives of introduced species as with Browns,Rainbows, Pheasants,Huns etc.
nobody is complaining about them.
__________________
I like fish cause they taste good
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 09-12-2011, 07:21 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greylynx View Post
When my uncle was training at Curry Barracks during WW2, he used to fish pools in the Bow with hand grenades. The fish were always few and small.
GRENADES do tend to make the fish smaller for sure.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 09-12-2011, 07:42 PM
greylynx greylynx is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorg View Post
I'll take that as a no.
If you have a specific search subject, I don't think it will be too hard.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 09-12-2011, 08:00 PM
horsetrader horsetrader is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 4,018
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by avb3 View Post
Have you read the whole thread?

The point has been made many time by myself and others, we *don't* know what the unintended consequences are of non-native plant, animal or fish introductions. That includes closed water bodies, because somehow fish that aren't suppose to be there always seem to find a way of doing so.

Heck, right here in my home town we have a trout pond with no egress or ingress.

How did that 8 lb pike get in there that was caught 2 years ago? Fat, sassy and decimating the stock trout.

So don't tell me anyone can guarantee that any introduced species can be controlled... they cant'

Besides, why spend money on a non-native fish when we have so many of our native fish that can use the help?
You keep saying that we can not guarantee that an introduced species can't get into other waters. Well you can't guaranteed that that species can't get in to the water at anytime. so that statement is moot and is no reason to stop introducing fish.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 09-12-2011, 08:05 PM
avb3 avb3 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 7,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorg View Post
I hear you but you only talk about the possible negatives --- what about the positives of introduced species as with Browns,Rainbows, Pheasants,Huns etc.
nobody is complaining about them.
Rainbows have had a direct negative effect on western cutthroat trout and likely the Athabasca rainbow trout, which is the only indigenous rainbow trout in Alberta.

I'm not aware of any negatives of Huns - we got lucky.

Although Pheasant hunting is a very popular activity by some Albertan's, if you look at the amount of money that has been spent on this bird, which essentially is a put and take as very few survive our winters, and then think of all the areas of native fish and animals that need money spent on them, which would you rather see? Pheasants or moose? Or sheep? Or get our goats back so we can hunt them? Or the Grizzly bear?

Why spend money on an non-native animal, when so many of our native ones need help, even if there appear to be no negative impacts.

Unless, of course, somehow we find that pot of gold at the end of some rainbow, after we fulfill societies other demands for healthcare, education, roads.... you know... the stuff that makes our world go round.

My vote goes to native species.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 09-12-2011, 08:12 PM
sheephunter
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorg View Post
I hear you but you only talk about the possible negatives --- what about the positives of introduced species as with Browns,Rainbows, Pheasants,Huns etc.
nobody is complaining about them.
Hybridization between birds is rare so not really a fair comparison and raibows have had some serious impacts on our cuthroats. Browns, the jury is still out. I see you forgot to mention brookies

Lots of stuff has been done in the past that will never be done again in the future. No matter how well-intentioned, two wrongs will never make a right!
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 09-12-2011, 08:16 PM
horsetrader horsetrader is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 4,018
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter View Post
While that may seem to make sense on the surface, I think you have to look a little deeper. There is no evidence of bass ever spawning in Alberta...the same can't be said about rainbows. I think you need to look at the causes of mortality and the spawning success for each species to get a bit more complete picture before making that comparison. Some of our southern reservoirs may be able to support a smallmouth population but I doubt there is a lake in Alberta suitable for largemouth.
99% of the waters bows are stock in are not suitable for spawning the % of natural spawned fish is not sufficient to self sustain the species. If the same stocking program was affixed to bass that the trout had there could be a nice bass fishery in alberta at this time
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 09-12-2011, 08:19 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

[QUOTE=avb3;1077400]No doubt assisted by nutrients caused by runoff from fertilization and livestock production.

The City of Calgary itself actually does a very good job on handling their sewage. I recall doing a field trip on the Bow, and the egress from the sewage plant had visibly less suspended material in it then the rest of the river.

Didn't smell either.[/QUOTE]


hahahhahahahahahahahahahahhhahahahahah.....you best use your nose instead of some scientific go go gadget meter.

You may be some smart self proclaimed scientist/ expert/ alberta decision maker on the board of experts/ and sportsman against the intro and expansion of fish species.............BUT I live on the BOW , which doesnt make me a expert or a person backed by scientific data. It makes me a street smart angler of the Bow for over 40 years......and after countless non scientific tests here is the results of my extensive experiment.

1....The Bow smells like crap below the poop pipe
2....Brown Trout and Boneless Browns make the river a World Class fishery
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.