New Legislation Aims To Prevent Spread Of Invasives - Page 3 - Fishing in the News - Nova Scotia Fishing

Jump to content


Photo

New Legislation Aims To Prevent Spread Of Invasives


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#41 Shimanoman

Shimanoman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1129 posts
  • LocationWaverley, Nova Scotia

Posted 17 November 2011 - 07:37 PM

Personally, if all freshwater minnows used for bait were banned from our waters in favour of only saltwater types, I would be quite pleased. (I really do not believe with the baits available today, that a live minnow is actually required in order to catch a trout.) I'm sure that we could fill the perceived requirement for live bait with worms, crickets, grasshoppers salamanders and leeches. Freshwater minnows are just not worth the potential harm they can cause. The proposed use of livewells only in boats during sanctioned tournaments is a definate step in the right direction. Regards....
  • 0
Life is too short, to take too much, too seriously, for too long ....Vernon P.Fraser

#42 Exstreamfisherman

Exstreamfisherman

    Streamside ProStaff

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 546 posts
  • LocationMoncton, NB

Posted 19 November 2011 - 03:44 PM

This topic has been discussed on so many different sites, forums, threads etc... that it is difficult to come up with new ideas that people haven't heard yet to correct the damamge caused by a minority of people. I say people because there is no way I could classify them as anglers if they knew what they were affecting. I am and always have been an avid angler for all species. I have taken a great deal of flack over this very fact for many years and some of it rightly so and deserved however I have always been an avid supporter of our native species.

Any regulation that can be put into place that can make even a slight difference in a positive direction should be looked at with great consideration. Just because a new law or legislation is not 100% effective is no reason not to back or support it. What would be the alternative, do nothing and then you can gaurantee that it will be 100% ineffective at affecting change and quite possibly, although difficult to put a time on it, 100% the reason why native populations expired altogether. Doing nothing has been the easy road taken by so many for so long that we need to correct things starting with this generation.

Let's look at it this way... no one likes change, but little changes are almost tolerable, after a short period of time they become included in our habits, a little while after this then they can make some more small changes..and so on and so on...

I have never, even as a child, used live bait. I see it as a very inexpesnsive way to fish which is good in many ways and horrible in others. It is good because kids can get out even when they have nothing to get them interested in the sport... they are our future so teach them what we did wrong so they can correct it. The downside to this inexpensive method is the potential damage it can do to a fish... now for this live bait for the most part I am speaking of worms and the like... live minnows are a different story altogether in that they are used (IMO) by those who are wealthy enough to fish but too lazy to learn how. Please don't take offence to this generalization because that is all I want it to be, for lack of a better description for the argument that is all... I fully see a use for live minnow fishing... but it would be with the rule that it is using bait from the water you are on... not pulled from one lake to use in another... even if the minnows that you are transporting or using for fishing are not the invasives that are the main concern, there is another underlying issue which many would overlook and that is thes netted or caged minnow species could very well have parasites or bacteria that could effectively decimate a healthy population of the same species in another body of water.

There have been so many good points in this thread that it should be evident that what the majority wants is for the native species to bounce back and be what they were (not going to happen but at least worth a shot IMO, they will never be what they were but we can make it way better than it is at present), they want the spread of invasives to stop and to eradicate them from many areas where they were introduced illegally.

Tim your insights as usual are bang on and there is nothing wrong with a little healthy skepticism. I love it when I am wrong in regards to people...
  • 1

#43 scottw

scottw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 19 November 2011 - 04:16 PM

Any regulation that can be put into place that can make even a slight difference in a positive direction should be looked at with great consideration. Just because a new law or legislation is not 100% effective is no reason not to back or support it.


The above example of a thought process is exactly what I fear. At various points in history that logic has been implemented, often with disastrous results.
I hate to bring up the long gun registry again, but this plays precisely into the hands of bureaucrats and special interest groups. Remember Liberal Senator Sharon Carstairs comment regarding gun laws: "C-68 (long gun registry) has little to do with gun control or crime control, but it is the first step necessary to begin the social re-engineering of Canada." She believed that there was no place for guns and hunting in Canada, and therefore some "inconvenience" for Canadians that hunt and shoot was acceptable. I refuse to create an inconvenience for anyone, if there is little-to-no reasonable chance that there is a real and positive effect.
Come up with regulations that have a reasonable chance of being effective, and I'll get behind it. A "slight chance" just doesn't cut it.
I sense another factor at work here; this proposed regulation was part of a brainstorm by some members of this forum, therefore there is little chance of of "sober second thought". It was written and submitted; therefore it must be supported in spite of any facts or better ideas.
  • 0

#44 Perry

Perry

    Moderator

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1353 posts

Posted 19 November 2011 - 04:43 PM

Any recommendations made by this site was by an inclusive process. A thread was developed and any member could post their recommendations after a week the thread was closed and all recommendations were considered in the final document. To suggest members brainstormed ideas would be correct but to infer that it was a few doing this in isolation from the rest of the members without considering members at large is false.
  • 0

Just because you fish a lot doen't mean you are great or even good. It just means you fish a lot!!


#45 scottw

scottw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 19 November 2011 - 04:51 PM

Any recommendations made by this site was by an inclusive process. A thread was developed and any member could post their recommendations after a week the thread was closed and all recommendations were considered in the final document. To suggest members brainstormed ideas would be correct but to infer that it was a few doing this in isolation from the rest of the members without considering members at large is false.

No inference was made. I remember the thread.
But it would be fair to say that a "few" members came up with the vast majority of ideas, and championed their particular ideas.
  • 0

#46 Exstreamfisherman

Exstreamfisherman

    Streamside ProStaff

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 546 posts
  • LocationMoncton, NB

Posted 19 November 2011 - 04:53 PM

From what I can recall there was huge input from the members on this site and much heated debate over the entire thing and in the end some form of semblence or concensus came from it. There were ideas from both side pro and con and they too were included in this document. Perry do you or Paul still have the original copy of what was issued after it was compiled to see it eases Scott's scense of what happened.

You have to remember I am all for change in a positive light... I suggested that any positive idea be given it's day in the sun...we should at least consider any and all posibilities.
  • 0

#47 scottw

scottw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 19 November 2011 - 05:02 PM

http://novascotiafis...ecies-document/
  • 0

#48 Exstreamfisherman

Exstreamfisherman

    Streamside ProStaff

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 546 posts
  • LocationMoncton, NB

Posted 19 November 2011 - 05:07 PM

Like any site, there will always be those more vocal... or in this case more type sensitive than others... the old site had upwards of 6000+ members but only a hundred or so would post regularly. Is that to say that those that lurked didn't have a voice, no of course not. There were those at that time that posted because of what was being put forward... both pro and con. If you say nothing or do nothing then you have no reason to complain when it didn't go your way... (if you don't vote then you can't complain one party took power over another) not to say that you are not voicing your opinion and therefore don't have the right to complain.. on the contrary... it is ok to be vocal about those things you are passionate about. It is also more important to see all sides and be open.

I don't think anyone forced their opinion down others throats or had the majority of say. So you say you remember the thread... did you have your say... did you feel pushed around at the time?
  • 0

#49 scottw

scottw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 19 November 2011 - 05:13 PM

Like any site, there will always be those more vocal... or in this case more type sensitive than others... the old site had upwards of 6000+ members but only a hundred or so would post regularly. Is that to say that those that lurked didn't have a voice, no of course not. There were those at that time that posted because of what was being put forward... both pro and con. If you say nothing or do nothing then you have no reason to complain when it didn't go your way... (if you don't vote then you can't complain one party took power over another) not to say that you are not voicing your opinion and therefore don't have the right to complain.. on the contrary... it is ok to be vocal about those things you are passionate about. It is also more important to see all sides and be open.

I don't think anyone forced their opinion down others throats or had the majority of say. So you say you remember the thread... did you have your say... did you feel pushed around at the time?

I think I posted, but I can't say for certain. Does the original thread still exist?
  • 0

#50 Exstreamfisherman

Exstreamfisherman

    Streamside ProStaff

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 546 posts
  • LocationMoncton, NB

Posted 19 November 2011 - 05:18 PM

yeah it worked... it is still a good document IMO... I think it represents many views in one document without contradicting itself.... very difficult to do in these politically correct times...
  • 0

#51 pmorris

pmorris

    Levity Consultant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1787 posts
  • LocationBedford, NS

Posted 19 November 2011 - 05:35 PM

I think I posted, but I can't say for certain. Does the original thread still exist?


I think the thread was lost in the transition to the new site in 2010.

Paul
  • 0

I started reading a book about anti-gravity and I just couldn't put it down.


#52 Tim

Tim

    Advanced Member

  • Field Editor
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 19 November 2011 - 05:43 PM

Thanks Ex, I agree on the minnow issue.

Scott, here is what you contributed to the document in red and how it was summarized in italics:


Scottw

I support increased penalties to people proven to spread invasive species. That's as far as my support goes, unless there is a scientifically proven failsafe method for removing pickerel from pristine trout habitat. Note: I said pristine trout waters, not waters that were never or not able to support a healthy trout population.

  • Increase the punishment for persons convicted of illegal introductions

  • 0
Stop Aquatic Invasives! Spread the word, not the species.

#53 pmorris

pmorris

    Levity Consultant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1787 posts
  • LocationBedford, NS

Posted 19 November 2011 - 05:47 PM

Perry do you or Paul still have the original copy of what was issued after it was compiled to see it eases Scott's scense of what happened.


Scott has already posted a link to the document. IMO, it's essential to read the preamble (roughly the first page-and-a-half) critically to fully understand what the document represents and its intended uses.

We had some outstanding participation in the thread from members who often had disparate opinions on how the invasives issue should be addressed. The only true concensus was that it had to be addressed. I was thrilled when the document was so well received by Inland Fisheries and that a number of initiatives were enacted so quickly thereafter. Although the problems were well understood before the document was created, the document obviously highlighted the urgency of the issue in anglers' minds and became a catalyst for change.

Paul
  • 0

I started reading a book about anti-gravity and I just couldn't put it down.


#54 Exstreamfisherman

Exstreamfisherman

    Streamside ProStaff

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 546 posts
  • LocationMoncton, NB

Posted 19 November 2011 - 05:57 PM

Paul I never know what you are going to say when I ask for your input...lol... and then you come out with something very cerebral... I like you for so many reasons...lol.
  • 0

#55 Evan88

Evan88

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 16 April 2013 - 09:45 AM

I'm all for a ban on live bait minnows, worms anything live as well as single barbless hooks on any and all lures/flies.......I also support the ban on transportation of live fishh including the livewell clause.....these recomendations/laws were brought forward with the help of a few good members and stafff from this site!!



You are out to lunch
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users