Tako Posted January 29, 2008 Posted January 29, 2008 Sorry all to heck Taco, yup, it is ole Hoot. I was sorta leaning toward Red Rider too. But he wears a different kinda hat. My understanding is (geeze I'm talking like a flippin' lawyer) the Windermere bass were government stocked. As were the blue gills or pumpkin seeds or whatever those other darn things are. I didn't want a war to break out with my first post for a while. But it is a neat feeling that I can still flame it up. But since bass are there and it doesn't involve two days getting to Creston, it could be fun fishing for them without having to feel too guilty. I had a blast on my one and only session at Duck slapping deer hair poppers between the milfoil beds. You learn real fast that you can't mess around with any dainty fly rodding techniques and crank them out of the cabbage with an 8-weight just like the good old boys do on TV. Ain't that the truth. If they were stocked, I was misinformed. But I still don't like em being that close to the Gerrards. They ma favourite Quote
adc Posted January 30, 2008 Posted January 30, 2008 But let's not waste a lot of time and effect tying to purify all of our waters back to before the European invasives got a foothold. Cheers! Clive Good idea but "we" are already consumed with that in our national parks........Used to be some decent fishing in Jasper but with the "natives only" philosophy not so much any more......Agree the original stockings there were not in any way scientific (Quebec Red Trout??) but the rainbow and brookie populations should have been sustained through stocking which doesn't occur any more........... Quote
Glenbow Posted January 30, 2008 Posted January 30, 2008 It's not the fish's fault for their being where they are. It would be nice if we could find ourselves able to respect all species for what and where they are, regardless of how they got there. I think we all know that without the historical stockings that have taken place our fisheries would be nothing like they are now, for better or worse. I do think that new stockings of foreign species is something that we should lean away from rather than pursue. Pacific Salmon in the great lakes? Who thought of that? Quote
bloom Posted January 30, 2008 Posted January 30, 2008 Actually, aren't Caucasians an invasive species? (Damn spell checker ) Quote
Glenbow Posted January 30, 2008 Posted January 30, 2008 Bloom, did you mean evasive or invasive? Quote
gustuphson Posted January 30, 2008 Posted January 30, 2008 Tako, I may be mistaken but did you end up working at Fortress Lake last summer? Quote
Tako Posted January 30, 2008 Posted January 30, 2008 Tako, I may be mistaken but did you end up working at Fortress Lake last summer? Long story short, nope Worked in Edson as a fish tech. Quote
gustuphson Posted January 30, 2008 Posted January 30, 2008 Edson! I might have a couple of questions for you come Spring. Welcome back. Quote
dryfly Posted January 30, 2008 Posted January 30, 2008 Tako, A few comments ... "both rainbows and cutts (westslope and sea run) are native to BC, including all the strains currently stocked, to mention nothing of bull trout, dolly varden, 4 species of pacific salmon, steelhead, lake trout and kokanee, as notable salmonid species, along with three or more species of whitefish and numerous cyprinid species." Yes, but you'd also agree that some of these have been moved within the province. And that in itself affects diversity. Put a salmonid in a barren lake and the biology is affected. Aquatic invert pops would be immediately affected. I am trying to make the point that you seem to support some stockings (natives within a province) but can't support others, i.e. non natives from outside of a border. And yes, I agree some of the stockings were terrible. "I don't think we were lacking in diversity to begin with." Yes agree. And we could also have argued way back, that there was enough diversity in Alberta 150 years ago. But the Euro invasives wanted rainbows and browns and they despised bull trout. So it was done. Good? Bad? "Stocking of brook trout was done carefully" You'd get one hell of an argument about that. In hindsight, brookie stocking was probably not a good idea anywhere west of Manitoba. Fish opportunities or not. "..and mostly in previously barren lakes, to avoid competition with native fish." From a purely fish (and fishing) point of view there were benefits, but as noted above adding fish to a barren water would change the entire biology of the water. So you support brookie planting from a fishing perspective. But from a "big picture" eco perspective, stocking brookies in a barren lake could only be seen as "bad" because it alters the ecosystem forever. It is dangerous to argue a stocking (of brookies) because it is "okay" and does not affect native fish species. But that is a narrow and slippery defense when viewed by ecologists who could rightfully argue that the "harmless" fish plantings mess up the aquatic ecosystem. (Hell, there was talk ten years ago of actually bombing ... NOT joking .. some waters in national parks to destroy all fish as they were not native. That was actually in a written discussion paper at Parks Canada. To weird. I bet Harps has a copy of the paper.) " Brown trout on Van Island (I believe) were illegally introduced by one of those 'sports fishermen' that seem to think they can single handedly transform a fishery into something great." Gee..sounds like Stauffer and the Bow River. "Bass, perch, pike, pumpkinseed, black crappie, carp and even goldfish have been sampled all over the lower mainland and southern interior, with even a couple smallmouth bass being caught (reportedly from a family pond) in the upper Quesnel River watershed!! The problem with these species is their incredibly high fecundity." Yeah, some of this is well out of hand and dangerous for sure. "My point is this: Illegally planted invasive species have caused some mega problems in this province." Agree, but legal stockings could just as easily be argued to have had a huge affect on aquatic ecosystems all over. Bass and perch mess up salmonid pops. Plant brookies or Gerrards in a barren lake and one can argue that they too mess up the natural ecosystem. So it all depends on one's perspective and we have to be careful how these things are approached and discussed. "It's as controversial a topic over here as jetboats or bully poaching is over there." NO NO!! Please never say "jetboats" on this board! "Hope to cross paths this summer and share thoughts over a drink," I am cool with that. Quote
Tako Posted January 30, 2008 Posted January 30, 2008 Yup. Agree with everything you said. It just comes down to how technical you want to be. Man, I love fishing Stauffer Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.