BC Fishing Reports banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,520 Posts
I am actually beside myself on how slow it has been. I haven't heard anything good yet and it's my home river. It seems the run is late or extremely low in numbers. Same story on the Cap so I wonder if it is somehow suffered the same fate in terms of ocean survival.




Hotrod
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Was out on Sunday with my son, looking forward to some great conditions (water level looked good, chum due to arrive). We fished the Mamquam and Squamish nearby. Not a bite. NO fihs visible ikn the clear pools. The conga line was on the banks of the Squamish as expected, but didn't see anyone with a fish on. Will try again next week, but the fish are definitely late this year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,520 Posts
DBN said:
Was out on Sunday with my son, looking forward to some great conditions (water level looked good, chum due to arrive). We fished the Mamquam and Squamish nearby. Not a bite. NO fihs visible ikn the clear pools. The conga line was on the banks of the Squamish as expected, but didn't see anyone with a fish on. Will try again next week, but the fish are definitely late this year.

This is exactly what I've been hearing for three weeks now!



Hotrod
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,520 Posts
The river has been high so many times the fish may have moved through. No reason to stop in the lower.I am surprised at the low numbers of chum.By the ned of September they start rolling in. I went there then and to my surprise it was like a ghost town. Not a single sign of fish anywhere. Certainly hope they are late and not missing

What we really need is for the rain to ease up and coller temps to take over.It seems we are getting November rains right now.I may get out for some scouting this week and I'll let you fellas know what's up.



Hotrod
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
784 Posts
Has that been 4 years already? I can't remember if that took place when the chum fry would be around. I have been trying from the beach (for chum) and so far no luck but hopefully it is because of late fish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,520 Posts
markus23 said:
Did the chemical spill in the Cheak have anything to do with it being slow?
If the fry live in the river for two years and then go out and come back in two years then I would say yes. But not sure of the cycle and when they leave the river for the ocean.If they stay for one year then hit the ocean for three years then next year should show us thw effects of the spill.

Anyone else have infpo on this?



Hotrod
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,520 Posts
On another note the Squamish Nation has a litigation suit against CN and are suing for over 100 million in damages and other aspects of the case can't be revealed.A pretty good chance they will have to buck up.



Hotrod
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
That happened a while ago, can't remember all the details. From what I remember the chemical that was spilled into the system did have an effect/kill fish that were in the river. I also believe that the chemical once diluted didn't cause any further damage, meaning that it did not require a "clean-up" process. I'm not a biologist but I would imagine that it would also have an effect on a number of other components in the river such as vegetation, water insects, bacteria etc etc.

Quick question??

1)How many fish and what species were actually lost due to the spill.

2)What "long term" effect did the spill cause on the system in regards to vegetation.


Now here's where this thread may get a little con traversal

I would like those of you reading to give your professional input/opinion based on your knowledge/background in regards to my next questions.

Was the spill a good thing or a bad???

I have discussed this issue with a number of fishing buddies and have been heard two points of views to debate.

1) Any spill that occurs will have an effect on the system and is unacceptable. This is a bad thing

2) This particular spill didn't leave any chemical residue and only impacted those species/vegetation which were in the river at the time until fully diluted. This may be a good thing. The reason being is that the number of species in the river at the time was minimal in relation to the annual run size. The chemical actually "cleansed" the river of any harmful or infectious bacteria etc etc. Now taking into consideration the "minimal" species loss the amount of good which may occur because of this. A large amount of money may be injected into the Fisheries enhancement program which allow stocks to surpass previous numbers, and the river now has the ability to start "fresh" in regards to all the bad stuff in the system.

I look forward to your intellectual input/opinion in regards to this topic.


:beerchug:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
901 Posts
Well i can see where you are coming from with the clean start
but what about the gene pool from all the fish that perished

thats like saying if there was a major flood and all perished
then it could be a good thing as it got rid of all he bad but shame about the good that were lost


not sure of how many fish perished but here is a good report on the effects of the spill
http://www.pskf.ca/publications/cheakums05/photos01.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
784 Posts
The theory of "diluted pollutants" is not a good way to look at a spill. We have been dumping chemicals and waste into our oceans with that exact theory; however, it does not simply vanish. I was watching a very interesting show called Planet Earth which outlines and emphasizes the fact that the idea of dilution as a form of waste management is now starting to catch up with us. The contaminants may not be present in the river system anymore however the damage was done and is probably still taking place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
901 Posts
I agree strethy
it doesnt matter how much coke you put in your vodka the alcahol content is still the same :drunk:
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top