troutsteaks
-
Posts
35 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by troutsteaks
-
-
Both of my solutions are non-eco-friendly so look away tree huggers. Spray foam in the ant hills and gasoline on the ant trails works every time.
-
Will be paid up ASAP. Had an unexpected expense pop up but should be caught up by the end of May. Sorry for the delay. BTW Rick, Andrew says to give him a shout on Facebook. Thanks again.
-
Really? Is there nothing that doesn't rub the Calgary boys wrong? LMAO Just bugging you boys.
It is legal below the high water mark as well as all Crown land but also a gray area as there are many restrictions for open fires. For those that do it, as long as it is responsibly done, there are no issues. For us southern Alberta boys and girls, it's the only way to have a hot lunch on the river. I usually kick my remains into the creek so there's no problems and no "visual scarring".
-
Please note that we put specific dates on the Golden Trout trip. Do you still want to bid?
I cannot do those specific dates. I will retract my bid for someone else to bid on it. Sorry if I caused an issue.
-
Hey Rick. I'm supposed to tell you to get in touch with Andrew Burla in regards to a donation.
-
$150 on 18 and $50 on 16 please.
-
Not a word of a lie, Andrew (drbulltrout) dines on these in the summer for a quick snack. Like dryfly said, cook them. I've been proven wrong about the taste of them last summer.
-
$225 on 22 and $50 on 18 please.
-
Does anyone have any extra tickets for Tiesto's Calgary or Edmonton show? My business partner is a huge fan and would love to go. Thanks.
-
$75 on 14 please.
-
Got to address this.
Brook trout are a highly invasive non native species capabale of surviving in nearly any waterbody. Throughtout their Albertan range, they have been shown to drastically reduce the spawning effectiveness and juvenile survival of Bull Trout. They impact other species but not nearly as badly as brook trout. This isn't one or two malcontents hating on Brook Trout. I love them and think they're an amazingly adaptable fish. But they don't belong in conjunction with Bull Trout. Whether or not you think they should be is irrelevent (sorry, but it is). It is in the best interest of the native fish of Alberta to remove as many Brook Trout populations as possible. Arctic Grayling have been virtually extirpated from the Pembina & Lovett Rivers as a result of Brook Trout invasion, Athabasca Rainbow populations have been driven out of many of their small freestone streams, Bull Trout populations from Hinton to the American border have suffered and declined as a result. These aren't small impacts nor are they made up. This has been happening since the 60s. I can tell you what a naturally functioning bull trout ecosystem looks like and I can tell you for certain that 30-50 adult bull trout per pool in many of these rivers was the norm before brook trout came along.
Whether or not you're willing to listen and change your opinion is another matter.
I understand this. What it is that I am trying to convey is that rainbow trout are destroying the genetics far worse in our streams compared to the so-called evil fish, the brook trout. Why is it that no one is putting out the recommendation of massive bag limits for rainbows in our mountain streams as opposed to ONLY brook trout? Here' s a quick test to see which species has had more of an impact: in the last 5 years, how many "cuttbows" has everyone caught as opposed to the "brookbulls"? Just curious; and Taco, maybe you should change your signature to include rainbows if you feel that passionately about your headwater streams.
To harps; I found Smitty's comments brash as he "rejected my thesis outright" on the basis that I was pandering "fear-mongering". Read back and you will see that that was the exact opposite that I was trying to convey. All I was trying to get across is that any opinion, whether in favor of natives, non-natives, environmentalist, etc., has to take in all perspectives and not just lay their convictions on a one-way street. If one is adamant about ridding brook trout because they cause overcrowding and genetic dilution, then they best be prepared to go the same route with the rainbow. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
-
Wow. I find these last two comments quite brash. I guess I'll just keep my opinions and comments to myself then. Sorry to bother you gentlemen.
-
ID tests to be able to fish for a species are flatout bullshit, poachin' tickets ain't. Do some research and see how many id tests are required down south where the bulls are in a more fragile state than here and the F&G departments are just as underfunded. All that's bein' said is that native species should be given a priority over the introduced where they interact. The emphasis has to change.
Why must you use profanity on a public board?
Regarding the side note, no, I do not think the attitudes are eerily similar. in fact, quite the opposite. (1) Bull trout are native, that is the major difference. Can't you see that? (2) Liberal limits, poaching, whatever factors you want to include in the pie chart of reasons for their decline, was largely done out of biased attitudes and/or ignorance. Times have changed and we've learned lots - by we've I mean the angling public in general - in terms of fish biology, the concerns of native vs non-native fish, the wider-spread adoption of C&R and other management practices. Far more anglers are aware of how important management practices are, I think. So I reject your thesis outright. Not scary or eerie, I am not going to succumb to an argument based on fear mongering.Smitty
What I meant to convey is the old adage that bull trout should be tossed into the bushes to make way for other more sporting species. This attitude almost extinguished the bull trout in Alberta. Now this Taco guy is wanting to extinguish all brook trout along the same lines using his own opinions as a basis for slaughter. I don't want to see the brook trout go the way of the dodo in our province just because of one or two disconcerting opinion voicers on a bulletin board. I apologize if this offends anyone but that's the way I see this being portrayed on this thread.
-
Re: The need for special licenses and ID tests,
A quick look to the south,
Montana; 20 brookies daily and in possession in most of the state 10 the rest, all wild stream caught cutthroat and bull trout must be released immediately and are identified by throat slashes and no black.
Idaho; 25 brook trout/day. Same ID and release criteria on natives.
Wyoming; 16 brook trout/day
Oregon; no limit or size restrictions on brook trout in certain waters
Colorado; 14 brook trout/day, several lakes have must kill regs in place.
California; 10 brook trout per day where competing with native trout
Utah; bonus limit on brook trout in certain waters
All states have more liberal harvest limits on introduced species over native species and several states also have must kill regulations on certain invasive fish species, you catch it you must dispatch it immediately. Plus bull trout cannot be even targeted in the good old US of A
I'm sure their F&G departments are just as short staffed and underfunded as ours is and I'm reasonably certain there's not a sudden IQ drop in the average fisherman north of the 49th Parallel. All it is an enforcement issue.
According to your stance about non-natives, if you're gonna put a large limit on brookies, you're gonna have to do the same for rainbows and browns. Are you good with destroying all rainbow and brown fisheries in order to get rid of brookies? All I am saying is that the stance against ALL NON-NATIVE fish is a slippery slope. Be careful what you wish for.
On a side note, the war on brookies is eerily similar to fishermen's attitudes towards the bull trout in the 70's and 80's don't you think? Scary what negative attitudes can do for a species and fisheries. Just food for thought.
-
$150 on 4 please. I'm in the doghouse and my wife loves seafood. :$*%&: LOL
-
Sorry guys, I have to shake my head whenever someone starts barking for more rules and regulations - we're already ruled and regulated to death. I don't mind paying more for a fishing license, but classified waters? Paying for trophies? C'mon, that's not management, that's setting up for an elitist fishery.
Throw some ideas out there on how to fix stupid and i'm all in. We all know that no matter what rules and regs are brought in, they will get broken. Some people just don't read the regs, some don't care, some want to keep what they catch - and fishing shouldn't be for an elite group of individuals.
Ok, so we pay more for licensing, I have no problem with that - but can you guarantee that the extra cash in the coffers are going to support the fishery and not end up in some politicians ass pocket for personal use? No, you can't.
Someone said that stiffer penalties should be brought in - yep, i'm all for that. Do like they do back in Newfoundland to protect the atlantic salmon, start reposessing all gear and vehicles, heavy fines and all of THAT should go to prop up the fisheries. Adds up in a hurry and can pay some yearly salaries for fisheries personell.
http://www.spawn1.ca/2010Convictions.html
Be careful you're not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater...
I totally agree with you. Everything you said there holds merit.
Last year at the Fisheries Round Table I saw a pie-chart which illustrated where your fishing license money goes. The general revenue thing is a myth. All the goverrnment gets is a tiny admin fee and the GST. The vast majority of your $$ goes directly into the resource.And 82% of all statistics are made up.
-
4) SWEATER WEARER: The guy that bought his first ever Flames jersey in 2004. Wears it at the game because he wants to look like everybody else, but won't wear it out after the game, cause it's doesn't match his outfit. Thinks that the sweater makes him a fan.
LMFAO. It's so true. There's so many black flaming C's. Whatever happened to the orange C's I used to see in the crowd when Lanny played? And before the Flames made their fluke run, who, in their right mind, would ever admit to even being associated with the Flames (i.e. the Flame fan base of the 90's)?
You did miss a category. Die hards would know about the Loob, the tri-captains, the old Patrick division and the dismantling of the core in the early 90's.
-
I am not a flames fan nor will I ever be but in my opinion, they need to start by getting somebody extremely crafty in the front office. They also need to trade the face names of the franchise while they still have some face value and bring in something better than just relying on 2 franchise players (I vaguely remember a trade involving another face of the franchise that brought in Iginla; I think it was Nieuwendyk but I could be wrong). The number of games that Kiprusoff has to play each year is ridiculous; they need to find a reasonably priced goaltending tandem that can be relied upon to alternate starts through the season. It'll be interesting to see how things pan out in the offseason.
-
$75 on 4 please.
-
Colour doesn't matter to me, I never get to see it. Terry
Haha. That's awesome. I feel your pain.
-
The only question I have in regards to this whole discussion is simply this: Is anyone from this discussion going to take the time, effort and initiative to spearhead all these idealistic values and take time out of their schedule to help enforce them? My guess is that, aside from this thread, nothing will happen. That's just my opinion; I'm not trying to start a war.
-
The other side of the arguement is that some would ask why we are playing with food. I don't agree with the sentiment, but I've heard it many times. I also think that if it is sustainable, I have no issue with harvest of non-native, abundant populations. In many cases they are hybrids living in what was once westslope habitat, occupying a niche in between the colder headwaters of the cutty and the warmer foothills sections that the rainbows exploit. Angler harvest of a fish is in my opinion the wrong focus as they pale in comparison to the habitat degredation that is ongoing currently. If you really want to help, rally against the clear cut logging that is slated to occur throughout the Castle drainage this summer. That will have much more influence on fish numbers than bonking one. Think warming of water, siltation of spawning habitat, decrease in functional cover/LWD, decreased cahnnel complexity...
That's what I call hitting the nail on the head in regards to protecting our mountain streams and harvesting fish. I completely agree with you Riley.
-
Didn't Jim McLennan write an article about C&R a couple of years ago about it being a double edged sword of sorts?
-
Most won't like it but C&R will only work for the protection the westslopes if there's a very liberal retention limit on all non-native trout in the foothill and mountain zones. Otherwise it just lip service.
Does that include rainbows and browns as well as the brook trout I think you're referring to? Aren't all trout except for cutthroat and bull "non-native"?
Arrrgh! It's Spring Allright! Dandelions!!!
in General Chat - Not Fishing Related (NFR)
Posted
How about you get out the old kitchen knife, harvest them, and make some delicious salads. I was skeptical once too but don't be.