River Philip, The Unfair Fishery - Page 5 - Rivers & Streams - Nova Scotia Fishing

Jump to content


Photo

River Philip, The Unfair Fishery

river philip regulations lure

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
106 replies to this topic

Poll: River Philip, The unfair fishery (61 member(s) have cast votes)

Who thinks it's fair that fly fisherman get to have free reign over river philip while lure / bait fisherman have to suffer?

  1. Not me, I only lure / bait fish (6 votes [9.84%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.84%

  2. Not me, I prefer lure / bait fishing but will fly fish if it's the only option (10 votes [16.39%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.39%

  3. Me (45 votes [73.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 73.77%

Vote

#81 -----

-----

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1040 posts
  • LocationAnywhere that fish are and people are not

Posted 19 June 2013 - 06:56 AM

Nothing like a good argument gentlemen !   DFO has made a LOT of huge mistakes regarding the management of our rersources but as bad as it is it's all we've got.  Personally i think we should err on the side of caution when it comes to management of our resources, the unfortunate reality is many decisions are influenced by $$$$$$, as is usual with gov't.   Ideally, inland fisheries should be under Watershed Management but I doubt this will ever happen in our lifetime.  Aquatic biology is greatly influenced by land-based factors and too often these factors are not included in management plans I.E :  recent " news"  that a development is going to take place at Long Lake in Hants Co,apparently, lake lots are now being offered for sale for cottage development.  Riparians need to be protected and comprehensive resource-use management with serious input from all stakeholders needs to be considered for any decisions regarding seasons, bag and retain limits, gear restrictions , "traditional use " seasons etc.  Very complex with myriad issues. It's very easy to point the finger ,  whine, ***** and moan but a bit more difficult to actually get involved and influence the management of our resources. So concludes my rambling rant for this morning .

I agree with what you are saying, however with some caveats. The users who should have input into development, or the opposite, protection of areas are also very narrow minded. Looking out for their piece of the pie. For example , many of the areas that the Province is currently considering to place on a “Protected or special Designated Area” list will also be out of bounds to many who use the areas for Fishing and Hunting. Development also has its limitations. We need development to move foreword, make no mistake about it, however we also need to consider where we are developing. Long Lake for example, the lower end, below the actual lake, is one of the areas that the Province is considering to designate. DFO has had many failure at its best, throughout the years. However they now  too are feeling the pain of cutbacks. They currently are cut to the bone. DNR is also cut to the bone and focus on very special issues, questionably, like Moose.
Care must be given when talking about designation, protection, development, The province is small, much of it is already cut to hell. The province allowed this cutting to occur, now they want to place many of these same areas off limits to the Outdoors community, after they have been butchered.
Forestry is and always will be the major contributing factor to watershed quality. I was into a place yesterday, one of the areas that is on the potential Designation area list. Never been there in my life, Old Bowater lands, so I decided to have a good look around. Nice waterway for certain, however either side of it is cut to nothing but ruins and the woods roads go up and down both sides of it and run completely across the bottom of the entire area. To protect any waterways from you and me with a fishing pole or rifle, when there are little to no trees on either side  it  that would protect it from mother nature herself, just seems a bit off . We talk about protection and conservation, however be careful how you do that, protection and conservation, according to many groups, the Nature Conservatory for example will also have you the outdoors users, out on your A$$. I am all for protection make no mistake, however  many of these groups  have agendas which do not include you or me.
Just my thoughts however.

  • 0
I keep my head held high and smile, because there are people who will kill to see me fall.

#82 fishingcaptain

fishingcaptain

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Locationn.s.

Posted 19 June 2013 - 09:51 AM

Well said!...I have a camp in East Hants where a protected area is proposed...I was thinking the same thing,why protect land that already has been cut to hell.When I asked DNR that,they told me it'll grow back.
  • 0

#83 fishingcaptain

fishingcaptain

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Locationn.s.

Posted 19 June 2013 - 09:55 AM

[email protected] the browns are on the bite...We went the other week but the river was up too far.Plan on trying again real soon.We went bassin instead,but really want to catch a brown trout.
  • 0

#84 -----

-----

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1040 posts
  • LocationAnywhere that fish are and people are not

Posted 19 June 2013 - 10:00 AM

Well said!...I have a camp in East Hants where a protected area is proposed...I was thinking the same thing,why protect land that already has been cut to hell.When I asked DNR that,they told me it'll grow back.

Possibily the same area that I was referring to below Long Lake? I really am not sure who came up with these areas. Although I have been told that DOE had a hand in it.  I could understand if the areas were untouched or old growth, but the areas that i am familiar with have already had the Timber Jacks go through. Yes, sure the areas will grow back, usually in species that were not there prior to the Forestry Operations. Junk Growth essentially.

I heard several months back that the DNR was Protecting these areas from us, not for us?  A United Nations mandate, that in itself should get some really concerned.

I will go to my grave stating that IMO the most damage done to any of our Natural Resourses comes at the hands of the Forest Industry, other damages are pale in comparison. I say this with many years in the backwoods.


  • 1
I keep my head held high and smile, because there are people who will kill to see me fall.

#85 basindawg

basindawg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1142 posts
  • LocationCanning NS

Posted 19 June 2013 - 04:49 PM

Possibily the same area that I was referring to below Long Lake? I really am not sure who came up with these areas. Although I have been told that DOE had a hand in it.  I could understand if the areas were untouched or old growth, but the areas that i am familiar with have already had the Timber Jacks go through. Yes, sure the areas will grow back, usually in species that were not there prior to the Forestry Operations. Junk Growth essentially.

I heard several months back that the DNR was Protecting these areas from us, not for us?  A United Nations mandate, that in itself should get some really concerned.

I will go to my grave stating that IMO the most damage done to any of our Natural Resourses comes at the hands of the Forest Industry, other damages are pale in comparison. I say this with many years in the backwoods.

 

Couldn't agree more,  idiotic forestry practices have decimated our wild resources.  When I suggest that all stakeholders should be involved in management decisions I do so with the understanding that it will never happen.  People, being human,  will always look out for # 1, their own personal interest(s)    and will argue til the sun goes down with other users for a piece of the pie.  Those arguments will never end .  Also, under a watershed management plan it`s essential that various levels of government - municipal, provincial and federal work together for a common interest of managing wild resources , again good luck with our elected reps on that.  Resource users would have to be willing to work together as well, can`t see that happening here either. Bottom line - our resources suffer, are decimated and we the users ultimately pay the price .


  • 0

#86 fishingcaptain

fishingcaptain

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Locationn.s.

Posted 20 June 2013 - 08:08 AM

Not Long Lake area....around the Georgefield are us where I'm talking about.Only old growth forest is a bunch of trees on the 3 acres I own.Ive only been there for a couple years and there's plenty of cuttings around...You would think that it would be better to protect uncut land instead of the clear cut areas....Damage has been already done in the area I'm in...Anyways,I've got this thread offtrack....sorry
  • 0

#87 -----

-----

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1040 posts
  • LocationAnywhere that fish are and people are not

Posted 20 June 2013 - 08:17 AM

Agreed regarding the Old Growth, however you own it in this case. Also very much agree on the status of lands already cut. I too helped with the thread off track.

Sorry as well.

Back to River Philip and the Brown Trout saga.


  • 0
I keep my head held high and smile, because there are people who will kill to see me fall.

#88 SalmoSolar

SalmoSolar

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 135 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 05:20 PM

i def agree with the forestry statement. which is also why i am such a proud new owner of 98acres of acadian old growth forest that is surrounded by protected crown land. 

and for the record this thread never had a track anyway.  was just someone who has zero logic in their head thinking it was a good idea to start a thread b*$#hing about a regulation change that serves no purpose other then to protect salmon.  

i for one am happy to see people who think that way seem to be far out numbered nowadays. :)


  • 0

#89 basindawg

basindawg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1142 posts
  • LocationCanning NS

Posted 20 June 2013 - 05:24 PM

i def agree with the forestry statement. which is also why i am such a proud new owner of 98acres of acadian old growth forest that is surrounded by protected crown land. 

and for the record this thread never had a track anyway.  was just someone who has zero logic in their head thinking it was a good idea to start a thread b*$#hing about a regulation change that serves no purpose other then to protect salmon.  

i for one am happy to see people who think that way seem to be far out numbered nowadays. :)

 

so, it's a bad idea to protect salmon ?


  • 0

#90 SalmoSolar

SalmoSolar

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 135 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 06:43 PM

so, it's a bad idea to protect salmon?

 

apparently snoop and bassnbrown think it is lol


  • 0

#91 BassNBrownsNinja

BassNBrownsNinja

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts

Posted 22 June 2013 - 01:46 PM

apparently snoop and bassnbrown think it is lol

Your an idiot...think about what you just said


  • 0

#92 basindawg

basindawg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1142 posts
  • LocationCanning NS

Posted 22 June 2013 - 07:26 PM

Hmmmm gonna be interesting to see where this goes now :rolleyes:


  • 0

#93 BassNBrownsNinja

BassNBrownsNinja

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:31 PM

Hmmmm gonna be interesting to see where this goes now :rolleyes:

Nowheres your an instigating sandsucker. Im done with u and your antics


  • 0

#94 basindawg

basindawg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1142 posts
  • LocationCanning NS

Posted 23 June 2013 - 05:58 AM

Nowheres your an instigating sandsucker. Im done with u and your antics

 

Thank you


  • 0

#95 SalmoSolar

SalmoSolar

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 135 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 10:51 PM

Your an idiot...think about what you just said

if thats not the pot callin the kettle black i dont know what is hahahaha

after the comments you have made on this thread i cant help but find it hilarious you even posted again.    you are a complete moron and have proven that fact a few times now in just this one thread.  keep' em comin o wise one......


  • 0

#96 BassNBrownsNinja

BassNBrownsNinja

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:04 AM

Yah geeze your right. I have no idea how I got a photoalbum with over 500 pics. I must have got them all at the Fish farm. just to let everyone know. So if you need information about fishing or how to fail at life, Salmosolar and BasinDawg are Your Guys!! The only people I can help are non-narcissist whos opinions are positive, because aparently theres no fish where these guys spend there time collecting dust. All I ever said about this thread is that the regulations in place now are working to bring the populations back. That is "MY" opinion. Basin and Salmo, your both intitled to "Your" opinion, no matter how narrow minded it may be. If you were a bit more polite and open to other people opinions, You would probly have a longer resume of fishing accomplishments due to an improved attitude. Your opinion on the populations would follow. Feel free to continue looking like an noob infront of all the real anglers though ;)


  • 0

#97 basindawg

basindawg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1142 posts
  • LocationCanning NS

Posted 24 June 2013 - 05:49 PM

Yah geeze your right. I have no idea how I got a photoalbum with over 500 pics. I must have got them all at the Fish farm. just to let everyone know. So if you need information about fishing or how to fail at life, Salmosolar and BasinDawg are Your Guys!! The only people I can help are non-narcissist whos opinions are positive, because aparently theres no fish where these guys spend there time collecting dust. All I ever said about this thread is that the regulations in place now are working to bring the populations back. That is "MY" opinion. Basin and Salmo, your both intitled to "Your" opinion, no matter how narrow minded it may be. If you were a bit more polite and open to other people opinions, You would probly have a longer resume of fishing accomplishments due to an improved attitude. Your opinion on the populations would follow. Feel free to continue looking like an noob infront of all the real anglers though ;)

 

Your lack of insight and sportsmanship are exceeded only by your obvious lack of intelligence. If you aren't careful you might grow up and no one will like you.


  • 0

#98 munky

munky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • LocationGreenhill, NS, Canada

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:33 PM

If you aren't careful you might grow up and no one will like you.

Too late.


  • 1

#99 Fishalotasaurus

Fishalotasaurus

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 69 posts
  • LocationBeaverbank/Lwr Sackville

Posted 25 June 2013 - 12:31 PM

lol man u guys are relentless....


  • 0

#100 basindawg

basindawg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1142 posts
  • LocationCanning NS

Posted 25 June 2013 - 04:47 PM

lol man u guys are relentless....

 

naw, only where required !


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users