BC Fishing Reports banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I have fished the Cowichan for many years and appreciate the fact that it is one of the only streams on Vancouver Island with a fly only section. Historically this magnificent river has had a broad range of species because of the moderation provided by Cowichan Lake. I know that what I am about to suggest is radical and as such expect few to consider the suggestion within this post as sensible. However, here goes.

Believe it or not long before the introduction of Brown Trout into the Cowichan system there were Sockeye in the system. Despite the difficult obstacle of Skutz falls, before there was a fish ladder, there was a return. Historically this return was fished actively by all who could. The return was not huge, like the returns once were in systems like the Nimpkish, however no doubt it had cycles of different returns depending on the 3 year life span of the Sockeye.

One old timer I talked to in the 1970's told me that a fish boat in Cowichan bay could purse up several thousand Sockeye in one set "NO PROBLEM" before the turn of the century and the Natives mostly headed up to Skutz to pick them off with nets as Sockeye just scooted up to the canyon and held until the water was right to get over the falls.

In all systems like the Cowichan that have substantially lost their major anadromous salmon runs, the Steelhead have suffered greatly as well. The reasons in some ways are obvious, in others not so obvious. Here is one possible explanation that I base upon observations made in healthy systems years ago.

I keenly remember watching 5-6 inch smolts robbing eggs from spawning salmon while I fished for Cuts which were doing the same thing. And I am only 60 years old and frequently saw this behavior in the 1960's in most streams on Vancouver Island that once had healthy salmon runs.

So in my estimation the health of any west coast river system with a Steelhead run is intrinsically tied to the health of all salmon runs within the system.

I have over the years seen the larger Browns in the Cowichan routinely prey upon steelhead smolts. They especially relish the salmon fry in the spring and early summer as they make there way down to the estuary. In fact in the next week or two I will be going up there to put some muddlers into the places where the browns lurk picking off the fry. I have enjoyed fishing for Browns on the Cowichan but have also noticed a drastic drop in cutthroat, native rainbow and all the native oncorhynchus species that we really prize as sport fish on the fly.

IN SHORT the introduction of Brown Trout into the Cowichan was about as sensible as the introduction of eastern grey squirrels or broom and gorse to Vancouver Island.

What I am alluding to here is that the complete removal of the Brown Trout permanently from one of the most important fisheries on Vancouver Island and that this action would not hurt the sport fishing industry ONE IOTA.:2cents:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,520 Posts
Good first hand knowledge from experience. Thanks for sharing. Having been on the cowie a few times I see what your saying!

hotrod
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Brown trout have been in the Cowichan since the thirties.I have never heard of sockeye in the Cowichan.Do you have any evidence of what you speak?Would be most interesting information.Every thing I have read says the only East Coast island river that had sockeye was the Nimpkish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Brown trout have been in the Cowichan since the thirties.I have never heard of sockeye in the Cowichan.Do you have any evidence of what you speak?Would be most interesting information.Every thing I have read says the only East Coast island river that had sockeye was the Nimpkish.
This is precisely the problem. Back before the 1900's the state of the Science of Ichthyology on the West Coast for the study of Oncorhynchus was practically non existent. So what the old gill netter told me can only be considered hearsay. However if the run did exist it could very easily have been brought to extinction without anyone noticing the difference. The ecology of Cowichan Lake could only support a small run of Sockeye perhaps no more than 10-15 thousand fish in combination with all the other species it still supports. Of course it didn't help with the logging industry doing things like using stream bed gravel for roads because it was cheaper than digging or finding a barrow pit. Like they routinely did in the 1940-60's.

In the 1930's the Stamp river was considered a good place to plant Atlantic Salmon, you see everybody would tell you that west coast salmon were useless as sport fish, because they don't bite once they get to the river they just die so all the rivers on Vancouver Island should have real trout and real salmon planted in them. THIS WAS THE THINKING! I remember most fishermen and worse politicians on Vancouver Island still believing it to be true and this was in 1965! The exception were the luminaries like Haig-Brown.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Why is it a problem?The brown trout have been there for years and your assuming the recent decline has any thing to do with that is unfounded.The main problems with the river systems to-day is artificial enhancement,over fishing,habitat loss and the fact that we keep thinking we know how to fix it,when we don't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
Why is it a problem?The brown trout have been there for years and your assuming the recent decline has any thing to do with that is unfounded.The main problems with the river systems to-day is artificial enhancement, over fishing, habitat loss and the fact that we keep thinking we know how to fix it,when we don't.
Yes they have been there for years but the combinations of habit loss, a general public stupidity about the environment and over fishing, have recently made putting a permanent predator like German Browns in the Cowichan akin to putting snake fish or carp in the Fraser system.

Yes people bonking the limited cuts and others that once migrated in this system has been terrible. ( I know we used to catch and release them flyfishing with muddlers not very long ago! ). I am definitely not saying I know all the solutions to this problem but I have a very keen sense about the key causes of this unfortunate state of affairs.

Our efforts at enhancement have to a large extent been experimental, but common sense dictates that the stewardship of the feeder spawning streams that feed the entire system is key to any chance for a recovery of this system AND MANY OTHERS. And this is where we need to do the real work. Sure there is no immediate financial benefit ...but within 20 years I am certain the benefits could be enormous.

Here we are watching idiots with holding tanks and very expensive temperature controlled and O2 saturation equipment bring perch into our environment and to a large extent most people could care less!

I am willing to bet that the next step in this crime would have been transporting in bass, walleye and pike for the lakes where the perch take over from the bows we plant in lakes.

Permanent voracious predators are not a good idea in the small systems like the Cowichan that in reality are to a large extent migratory path ways to spate spawning head waters!

I am 60 years old and could care less if my views on these issues step on a few toes, in my estimation they need it! And we desperately need an intelligent and thorough debate and change in political will to make some serious changes to our behaviour.

More to the point it is well known that upper Thompson Sockeye were mistakenly transplanted into a system in New Zealand as KOKANEE, they took and began to cycle in a fresh water only system.

The phenotypic plasticity of Sockeye and other Native west coast species is indeed very poorly understood and it is time we educated ourselves!

To clarify phenotypic plasticity is simply the complex genetic ability to modify a species behaviour and or physical characteristics of the species.

I did not intend to condescend to the readers of the post so I provided the link to a definition for those who have never heard this rather new and obscure genetic scientific concept.

Reference: Claiming the rapid change in Sockeye from being anadromous to becoming non-anadromous
Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand Sept 1984Similarly steelhead become non-anadromous very rapidy as witness the populations of Steelhead in Ontario Great Lakes.

My theory is perhaps it can work in reverse, this adaptation would make perfect sense in an environment where streams can change due to land slides, and other geographic disturbances.

Perceiving these species as completely inflexible and only tied to single systems on the West Coast perhaps is a little extreme.


Yes the hatchery method is flawed but there are other ways to rear salmon even though it could be extremely labour intensive and perhaps controversial. But if it is undertaken with an open mind and in a careful and non destructive way we might just be amazed how adaptable the genus Oncorhynchus really is.

I extended this post to help clarify what I am proposing. And did so in hopes of hearing feedback whether positive or negative.

We do need to become real stewards of the fisheries and we need to do it now not tomorrow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
There are Carp in the Fraser system and have been for years.I have been around for a few years more than you.Until we have the will to fix the environmental problems we will see our fishing and hunting continue to decline.We,that hunt and fish,are a minority in this country and the rest just don't care.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
There are Carp in the Fraser system and have been for years.I have been around for a few years more than you.Until we have the will to fix the environmental problems we will see our fishing and hunting continue to decline.We,that hunt and fish,are a minority in this country and the rest just don't care.
Well I think it's about time we the minority need to step up and start taking action. I think a lot of the current angling population would be willing to help out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Then you must get involved.Steelhead Society,Sportsfishing Institute or your local Fish and Game Association.It is very frustrating at times but if we give up the fight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)
If you want an prime example of an invasive species you need look no further than Rainbow Trout.
"EDIT" the following statement was regarding putting rainbow trout in the interior lakes where they replaced the named species of (squaw fish) A name, which for obvious and good reason needs to be now denigrated for good I guess Northern Pike Minnow is a good start. But in some cases I seriously believe what we are doing is again a mistake. As contrary to popular belief there are ways to consume them and they are quite tasty if prepared correctly and you have the time to do it. And they are not at all worse than a similar sized char as an angling choice. Just more bones and that is all. And infinitely more eager to take a fly.

...............

No doubt when done by deliberately removing all Ptychocheilus oregonesis (once know as squaw fish) first. At one time I used to regularly shake hands/fins with one of these surprisingly strong and interesting fish on muddlers, caddis, mayfly and you name it. A five plus pounder will definitely kick you in the butt on a 4 weight if you horse the fish!
.....................

"EDIT" to get to the point that perhaps someone might get the bright idea of putting perch into the Cowichan system but missed the mark as in some cases the river rainbows are completely native in British Columbia.
But most importantly the fact that some might consider the possibility of creating eastern Canadian like lake systems
a real possibility if they don't get caught at it first. Which as an enterprise seems to me to be absolutely insane, compared to most of what I write. Much more environmentally stupid than putting either Brown or River Rainbows into the Cowichan system.



...................................


Of course I have never experienced the incomparable experience of catching that unforgettably delicious Eastern Percidae, in BC at least. But a good Ptychocheilus oregonesis Northern Pike Minnow will hands down out fight the predators of these fish which are Large and Small Mouth Bass, pike an to some extent walleye.

Bass, pike and walleye are the most over rated angling species on the planet on television and in the real world in my estimation, from good first hand experience.

A four lb Thompson river rainbow "trout" {sic} Oncorhynchus mykiss can make either of these Eastern Bass choices for an angler pale by comparison though.:2cents: And Walleye, though truly great eating are terrible and the most wimpy fish I have ever caught! Northern Pike can be interesting..but only for about 40-50 seconds in my experience regardless of size and girth. All and all angling for eastern species in almost all of British Columbia is boring when you have real fish readily available.

"EDIT" I tried to explain the fact that the British Columbia river rainbow is absolutely one of the most incredible sport fish on the planet especially on the fly. Whether or not anadromous in many places, however YES the misplaced but well meaning planting of this particular sub species of Rainbow in a reproductive state into some of our rivers was a mistake!

On the bright side of the equation;

Perhaps where we have erred transplanting can be recovered more quickly than we once believed.

The genetic differentiation of Oncohrynchus is not at all well understood yet. Not very long ago they were considered to be of the genus Salmo.

The very concept of messanger dna is quite new as is genetics in general and the phenotypic plasticity provided by what was once considered only to be excess or ancestral material within the chromosome, thus having no known purpose might be very questionable.

Eastern perch, pike and bass could easily be devastating to some very productive systems in BC! And proceeding with Johnny Fish Seed schemes is not the answer to the problems facing the Cowican system and others.

I give the members of this forum the credit for understanding why this issue is of such importance to our very existence as sport fisherman in BC whether or not at sea or on the land.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
No doubt when done by deliberately removing all Ptychocheilus oregonesis first. At one time I used to regularly shake hands/fins with one of these surprisingly strong and interesting fish on muddlers, caddis, mayfly and you name it. A five plus pounder will definitely kick you in the butt on a 4 weight if you horse the fish!

Of course I have never experience the incomparable experience of catching that unforgettably delicious Eastern Percidae, in BC at least. But a good Ptychocheilus oregonesis will hands down out fight the predators of these fish which are both Large and Small Mouth Bass. Both of which are the most over rated angling species on the planet in my estimation from good first hand experience! A four lb Thompson river rainbow "trout" {sic} Oncorhynchus can make any of these choices for an angler pale by comparison though.:2cents:
Not sure of your point. You want more Pikeminnows in the Cowichan because they will out fight Bass?
 

·
Retired staff
Joined
·
6,684 Posts
...

On the bright side of the equation;

Perhaps where we have erred transplanting can be recovered more quickly than we once believed.

The genetic differentiation of Oncohrynchus is not at all well understood yet. Not very long ago they were considered to be of the genus Salmo.

The very concept of messanger dna is quite new as is genetics in general and the phenotypic plasticity provided by what was once considered only to be excess or ancestral material within the chromosome, thus having no known purpose might be very questionable.

A quick clarification here for the members, they are still classified in the Salmo genus on the other side of the water, it is only here in North America that scientists decided to reclassify.

Now also...reeman however well intentioned is incorrectly using scientific jargon and perhaps bastardizing ideas and concepts into a layman form and it is inaccurate. It is not messanger DNA, it is messenger RNA, the later is transcribed from DNA and used in many various cellular functions, not the least of which are a multitude of ways in which the cell turns on or off various genes during development. Messenger RNA is not new at all, nor is genetics and it has long been known that various species within the Oncorhynchus characterization are quite capable of residualizing rather than taking the anadromous form.

Kokanee are a long time well known example of this and one need only look at the anadromous capabilitities of previously landlocked strains released below the dam in the Allouette watershed. These were Kokanee that once given the opportunity were able to turn on the pathways which allowed them to take the anadromous form and return as sockeye years later. Planting sockeye in a lake is a simple concept and kokanee are commonplace, but what was not realized was that the reverse was possible also. Despite the fact they had been isolated for many, many, many generations behind a dam, a landlocked strain was able to reverse the process, they had retained their original genotypic integrity.

What's even more interesting is it is not always even required that a population be isolated/landlocked to do so. One prime example of this are our steelhead. It's now been determined that residents and anadromous forms alike each can produce offspring of either variety, and that a percentage of our steelhead young never turn on those genes at all despite their brothers and sisters heading out to sea. The only thing that is not clear yet is exactly which specific genes are turned on or off in the differentiation process, the targets of these mechanism have yet to be elucidated.

It is a dangerous thing to try to change our ecosystems by introducing or removing species, but it is perhaps even greater folly to repeat the mistake by removing populations after an ecosystem has had time to adjust. It was wrong to play god in the first place, often it can just as damaging to do it again and again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Discussion Starter #15 (Edited)
A quick clarification here for the members, they are still classified in the Salmo genus on the other side of the water, it is only here in North America that scientists decided to reclassify.

Now also...reeman however well intentioned is incorrectly using scientific jargon and perhaps bastardizing ideas and concepts into a layman form and it is inaccurate. It is not messanger DNA, it is messenger RNA, the later is transcribed from DNA and used in many various cellular functions, not the least of which are a multitude of ways in which the cell turns on or off various genes during development. Messenger RNA is not new at all, nor is genetics and it has long been known that various species within the Oncorhynchus characterization are quite capable of residualizing rather than taking the anadromous form.

Kokanee are a long time well known example of this and one need only look at the anadromous capabilitities of previously landlocked strains released below the dam in the Allouette watershed. These were Kokanee that once given the opportunity were able to turn on the pathways which allowed them to take the anadromous form and return as sockeye years later. Planting sockeye in a lake is a simple concept and kokanee are commonplace, but what was not realized was that the reverse was possible also. Despite the fact they had been isolated for many, many, many generations behind a dam, a landlocked strain was able to reverse the process, they had retained their original genotypic integrity.

What's even more interesting is it is not always even required that a population be isolated/landlocked to do so. One prime example of this are our steelhead. It's now been determined that residents and anadromous forms alike each can produce offspring of either variety, and that a percentage of our steelhead young never turn on those genes at all despite their brothers and sisters heading out to sea. The only thing that is not clear yet is exactly which specific signals and pathways are turned on or off in the differentiation process, the complete mechanics of this has yet to be elucidated.

It is a dangerous thing to try to change our ecosystems by introducing or removing species, but it is perhaps even greater folly to repeat the mistake by removing populations after an ecosystem has had time to adjust. It was wrong to play god in the first place, often it can just as damaging to do it again and again.
I just saw a program, as I freely admit that I am no scientist, that claims a more complex relationship exists between the individual genes and the excess dna NOT rna functions. So as such I am aware of the difference between messenger rna and the completely new and as yet not fully understood function of excess dna in combination with the genes.

If you think of this as somewhat akin to the system bus on a computer and the genes being the devices that the bus communicates with the concept becomes a little more clear.

But thank you indeed for adding the function of rna
into this thread as explaining things in depth is not one of my strong points when writing without any visual drawing aids. And doing so without a sound reference to preclude speculation. If I find reference to this other than what I just saw on a pbs program I will post it. The concept is quite new.

However some speculation can lead to valid results otherwise science would never have advanced. And certainly it is a very dangerous thing to change our ecosystems on a whim, such is the dream of stream restoration, which is indeed very a sad state of affairs for the ecology. But every once and a while helping some fry stranded in a back water is a forgivable sin against the "leave it all only to nature!" crowd.:( This is the problem with stream steward ship here and elsewhere.

As to the objections to using fish from other systems to "enhance" or add to the mix as being completely wrong. Soon on many streams on Vancouver Island the point will become moot if we do not make comprehensive stream habitat restoration a priority immediately where it is still possible.
 

·
Retired staff
Joined
·
6,684 Posts
I just saw a program, as I freely admit that I am no scientist, that claims a more complex relationship exists between the individual genes and the excess dna NOT rna functions. So as such I am aware of the difference between messenger rna and the completely new and as yet not fully understood function of excess dna in combination with the genes.

If you think of this as somewhat akin to the system bus on a computer and the genes being the devices that the bus communicates with the concept becomes a little more clear...
It is interesting to read about the program on PBS you saw and in turn your layman effort to make such concepts "more clear" for me. I must admit to you that I work in Cancer Research, specifically but not exclusively transgenics, which means not only do I have strong working knowledge and hands on experience manipulating DNA, but also have an educational background that includes molecular and mendelian genetics, developmental biology, biochemistry and the like, this includes reasonable scientific understanding of various cellular pathways, triggers of genetic expression, cellular differentiation, etc, etc...

I hope it will not offend you therefore, if I stick to my own personal experience and working knowledge on the subject and ignore your base and condescending efforts to offer me clarity.

...But thank you indeed for adding the function of rna into this thread as explaining things in depth is not one of my strong points when writing without any visual drawing aids. And doing so without a sound reference to preclude speculation. If I find reference to this other than what I just saw on a pbs program I will post it. The concept is quite new.

However some speculation can lead to valid results otherwise science would never have advanced. And certainly it is a very dangerous thing to change our ecosystems on a whim, such is the dream of stream restoration, which is indeed very a sad state of affairs for the ecology. But every once and a while helping some fry stranded in a back water is a forgivable sin against the "leave it all only to nature!" crowd.:( This is the problem with stream steward ship here and elsewhere.

As to the objections to using fish from other systems to "enhance" or add to the mix as being completely wrong. Soon on many streams on Vancouver Island the point will become moot if we do not make comprehensive stream habitat restoration a priority immediately where it is still possible.
Still to the point, what your program is likely refering to are small DNA fragments in cellular matrix, and they are not messenger DNA, to label them as such is misleading to say the least, and akin to calling mail pidgeons the "world wide web", worse even, as these small DNA fragments do not carry any message per se, and would be more accurately described as paper weights, scotch tape or a a strip of fly paper. They are not transcribed or translated, do not form tertiary or quaternary structures, have binding sites, chelators or the like. The fact that the program you watched felt this was a new discovery does not make it so from a scientific perspective. DNA fragments and roles as tools in cellular processes and development have been studied and acknowledged for decades. Of course how you came to the conclusion that you could confidently assert that small dna fragments are responsible for the cellular differentiation between anadromous behavior and residualization in our salmonids is beyond me given by your own admission their full use and purpose in not fully understood. Were you just throwing that stuff in there for effect or something?

Lastly, we come full circle again, there is a very big difference between saving a few stranded fry and culling the entire brown trout population in the Cowichan river. To liken that to a forgiveable sin and in the good name of stewardship is reprehensible and a flat out irresponsible message to promote.

:cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
I hope it will not offend you therefore, if I stick to my own personal experience and working knowledge on the subject and ignore your base and condescending efforts to offer me clarity.
No offense taken at all Ribby

Still to the point, what your program is likely refering to are small DNA fragments in cellular matrix, and they are not messenger DNA, to label them as such is misleading to say the least, and akin to calling mail pidgeons the "world wide web", worse even, as these small DNA fragments do not carry any message per se, and would be more accurately described as paper weights, scotch tape or a a strip of fly paper. They are not transcribed or translated, do not form tertiary or quaternary structures, have binding sites, chelators or the like. The fact that the program you watched felt this was a new discovery does not make it so from a scientific perspective. DNA fragments and roles as tools in cellular processes and development have been studied and acknowledged for decades. Of course how you came to the conclusion that you could confidently assert that small dna fragments are responsible for the cellular differentiation between anadromous behavior and residualization in our salmonids is beyond me given by your own admission their full use and purpose in not fully understood. Were you just throwing that stuff in there for effect or something?

Lastly, we come full circle again, there is a very big difference between saving a few stranded fry and culling the entire brown trout population in the Cowichan river. To liken that to a forgiveable sin and in the good name of stewardship is reprehensible and a flat out irresponsible message to promote.

:cheers:
In watching and carefully listening to what the individual doing the research was speculating the overall conclusion was that these "small" fragments of dna can be triggered into action by environmental changes within the host which in turn are subject to external conditions. Essentially triggering a functional modification caused by external effect. The holy grail of Darwin if I am not mistaken. So as I stated it is a new concept that he and his colleges have some evidence to support the theory.

I am not immediately advocating the complete removal of Browns from the Cowichan, I too do love to fish for them as they are very wary and oft times interesting sport. They do teach a fly fisherman much about fish behaviour, for instance the propensity for evening predation of insects when during the day time taking the very same bugs would expose them to their predators.

However not wanting to fall prey to creditors has kept me from shaking hands with them frequently so the current state of their abundance in the good waters of the Cowichan is unknown to me at this time. I do however hope to remedy this unfortunate state of affairs sometime in late spring before the inner tube hatch starts on the fly water.

I hope you can forgive me for essentially playing "devils advocate" but in doing so I at least hope some visitors to this site have begun to think seriously about these issues. Knee jerk reactionary fisheries management is the last thing I advocate! Having seen the consequences in many places over the years.

I am a better humourist than scientific writer and dabble in orchestral scoring when not working as having studied Berlioz and Rimsky-Korsakov treatises, as well as harmony and counterpoint is my hobby. You know the old adage "don't give up your day job if you are a musician"

I will in future be slightly less trigger happy on the keyboard at playing "devils advocate" when my intentions in doing so is not quickly understood!

Thank you
Eric
 

·
Retired staff
Joined
·
6,684 Posts
...
In watching and carefully listening to what the individual doing the research was speculating the overall conclusion was that these "small" fragments of dna can be triggered into action by environmental changes within the host which in turn are subject to external conditions. Essentially triggering a functional modification caused by external effect. The holy grail of Darwin if I am not mistaken. So as I stated it is a new concept that he and his colleges have some evidence to support the theory...
The most recent developments with these are not in any way whatsoever the "Holy grail of Darwin", and its still not a new concept. I will explain, briefly. Your tv program is delayed, the science happened long before anyone decided to film a show about it, this is also why most in the science community knew about this 5-6 years ago or more. What you have described is called amplification, which was already being studied long ago, and these small fragments play a role in the process as simple tools to help facilitate it. They are not the initiators of amplification, but rather one of several tools that are employed by the cell in the process. Now...for a strain of fish to residualize or choose an anadromous pathway is unrelated to these small DNA fragments. The activation of various pathways and genes for the anadromous portion of a fish's life are a normal progression of its life cycle and development. The machinery that turns on those pathways, are the same machineries that turn on other developmental cycles such as reproduction, smoltification, etc., and these processes are still all managed by the classic and long known mechanisms involving messenger RNA, various proteins, etc, etc...not "messanger dna". To attribute these processes to these small DNA fragments would be akin to something like saying your cars engine is able to perform combustion because of the little glowing lights that illuminate your dashboard.

It seems to me that in this instance you were grasping at concepts like genetics, anadromy and adaptation maybe because you thought it sounded good, perhaps as part of an effort to establish yourself in this community. It probably sounded good at a casual glance to the unknowing reader, and with the expectation nobody was around to correct the inaccuracy of the statement it might have been an effort to establish yourself as knowledgeable in such things. I will say this however, it's not necessary to do so, and I say this sincerely with the hope you will ease such efforts and save face. Clearly you have experience and are knowledgeable in many things fishing related, you likely have much to offer the forum, but it is not necessary to misrepresent your knowledge base in order to form a good reputation and earn the respect of your peers here at BCFR. If you stick to what you know and offer that without pretense, then you will be well on your way to contributing here to this community in a positive manner that will earn you more respect and friends than you ever would in trying to be something that you are not.

I am not immediately advocating the complete removal of Browns from the Cowichan, I too do love to fish for them as they are very wary and oft times interesting sport...

...I hope you can forgive me for essentially playing "devils advocate" but in doing so I at least hope some visitors to this site have begun to think seriously about these issues. Knee jerk reactionary fisheries management is the last thing I advocate! Having seen the consequences in many places over the years.
I am very glad to hear this. It is a far cry from what I had read in the beginnings of this thread from you...

I know that what I am about to suggest is radical and as such expect few to consider the suggestion within this post as sensible. However, here goes...

...What I am alluding to here is that the complete removal of the Brown Trout permanently from one of the most important fisheries on Vancouver Island and that this action would not hurt the sport fishing industry ONE IOTA.:2cents:
...to advocate for the culling of species in any ecosystem is a dangerous thing with potentially far reaching consequences that we cannot anticipate. To do so and then conveniently claim the guise of trying to somehow enlighten and engage the masses to think doesn't do much for your stance either.

Here at BCFR we have long supported environmental stewardship, responsible angling practices and ethics, not to mention fostering respect and courtesy towards our fellow anglers on and off the river...We who run the site, but more importantly many of the members who make up this online community strive for those same things. We encourage all of our members, guests and visitors alike to pursue such goals as well.

I am encouraged to hear that you will try to be less trigger happy in the future Reeman, I suspect that you have much to offer in the way of real advice and experience, certainly more than enough that you do not have to go beyond those to make a point.

Hopefully this can be a turning point for us now and we can lead off on the right foot to genuine and helpful contributions to the forum.

:cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Discussion Starter #19 (Edited)
Yes Yes!
Blind speculation is exactly that when it comes to stream stewardship. OR any form of environmental or biologically based experimentation, which, unfortunately has been our methodology in regards to fisheries management in general.

We are not geniuses and oft times in taking the advice verbatim of those who we consider to be so has led to folly.

So if this thread is to have any meaning at all then lets please be specific and talk then about what can readily and easily be done without doing more perhaps irreparable harm.

First thing that comes to mind are the spate feeder creeks of Cowichan Lake that need to have more close examination as to actual habit loss and the reasons for it. Shaw and others for a start, how much variance between the times of run off and the end of dry summer season when the salmon start to show up is as good a place as any. Further to that which areas of the creeks need to be carefully protected and maintained if at all possible any more.

I hope this finally explains why I have chosen to play "devils advocate" on this and other very serious issues effecting the Province and you and your dedicated, concerned and sensitive angler colleagues will understand my motives.

Sincerely
Eric

Oft times humour is a last resort.
"I knew an old lady who swallowed a salmon"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samnjoe

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,669 Posts
I don't see how you are playing devil's advocate. Your reasoning and your English are garbled and your posts don't make a whole lot of sense. Maybe try and be a bit clearer about what you are trying to say without all the needless obfuscation.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top