Nova Scotia Fishing Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I watched Land and Sea on Sunday as the topic was about Smallmouth Bass and how they interact with Alewife on the St Criox River. There is a major dispute going on regarding the negative impact the Alewife have on the Smallmouth on the river and lakes that feed into it.

The arguments are that the USA wants to stop the Alewife run as they believe that it is harming the Smallmouth fishery and the Canadian government wants them to run the river freely for ecological reasons. I'm not getting into the argument of which is correct as I do not have enough facts to formulate an informed opinion yet.

What I do find amazing however is that the US government is doing things to protect the SMB fishery as they see it as a major economic boost. While here in the Maritimes everything is being done to discredit it. Go figure......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
587 Posts
Hi onthesqr
I didn't see the program so cann't comment on it.
However I would have thought the damage would have been the other way around. The SMB reducing the alewives. The SMB really feed on the small alewives in the summer - some rivers like the Lahave, it appears to be the SMB main forage fish. I guess it shows things are not always what they seem and Department of Fisheries can have different opinions - not much wonder we have differences on this group.
Enjoy the day
Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Hi onthesqr
I didn't see the program so cann't comment on it.
However I would have thought the damage would have been the other way around. The SMB reducing the alewives. The SMB really feed on the small alewives in the summer - some rivers like the Lahave, it appears to be the SMB main forage fish. I guess it shows things are not always what they seem and Department of Fisheries can have different opinions - not much wonder we have differences on this group.
Enjoy the day
Paul
It has to do with the young Alewife eating all the plankton and the hatchling smallies having no food source. On the other side. More mature smallies do eat alewife.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
587 Posts
Hi
I found an interesting site devoted to the question.
http://www.ijc.org/rel/st-croix-alewife/
It is long and tedious but seems the American DOF does not think Alewives contributed to a down turn in SMB numbers but anglers did.
Not the first time DOF and Anglers did not agree!
The report could be used to argue both sides of the question as we all know how the CBC likes to enlarge US - CAN differences no doubt they could have picked and choosed here!
Have a nice day
Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
You can see the episode HERE

This has been a hot topic at recent fisheries conferences I've attended. Just goes to show how much polarity there still is regarding invasives, dams and native-fish management.

I know the author of a recent report sent to congress, and there was a lot of 'skimming over' in that show. However, they did metnion the most important fact of there being virtually no evidence to support the assumptions of the guides that Alewife negatively impact the non-native bass. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they do not! It is the old issue of 'causation vs. correlation'. Just be cause the SMB popn's took a dip at about the same time that there were good numbers of alweife returning does not mean that the alewife caused that dip.

The thing that really surprised me is that the State of Maine sided with the unsupported opinions of those guide over the well-supported evidence presented by science.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
587 Posts
The thing that really surprised me is that the State of Maine sided with the unsupported opinions of those guide over the well-supported evidence presented by science.
Not susprising Halfyard!
Guides have more votes than scienticts and "well-supported evidence presented by science." has proved very swiss cheese like in the past and well no doubt do so again in the future.
Have a nice day
Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
.. and "well-supported evidence presented by science." has proved very swiss cheese like in the past and well no doubt do so again in the future.
Have a nice day
Paul
I tend to disagree. While there no doubt has been poor science spread around in the past (and will be in the future), it is easy to tell the difference between good and poor science, and if the science-community as a whole accepts a piece of work (i.e. the peer-review process), then it is likely ok. Not to mention that good science will always state when there are uncertainties.

Fine examples are both the cod collapse and major declines in Pacific salmon. Most people believe that the scientists has it all wrong. In actuality, there was a fair amount of well-documented evidence to suggest that these collapses were likely to happen. The message was lost as it moved through the system (bureaucratic and political interference), and after the difficulties of setting quotas, considering unemployment etc., that advise was basically ignored. Too many people take an conspiracy-theory approach to fisheries science, and that is unfortunate!
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
1,353 Posts
I saw the show and still am shakeing my head. The idea that alewives are an non native invasive species that are impacting on a native species says it all!! The studies that show a healthy population of alewives provide forage for numberous species in the ocean show that the collasp of species that utilize alewives as a food source when the alewives are reduced in numbers. The arguements that claimed the negetive impact of alewives were based on opinion. I agree Paul sometimes we the guides are not part of the discussion on management or considered the "Unwashed" but in this case the guides are wrong and so is the US for blocking the river to alewives.
If I am shakeing my head Eddie you must be in shock! LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
587 Posts
Too many people take an conspiracy-theory approach to fisheries science, and that is unfortunate!
Ah yes Halfyard but this is a problem the scientists have to look out for. Most are so sure of them selves they wouldn't go talk with a guide. Maybe the guide knows something they don't and his input wouldn't help the next funding application they are making!
I worked with scientists for a number of years and let there be no mistake the next funding is right up there with the important issues.
I once worked with a renowned scientist many years ago whose theories are nowadays daily presented in the media. Not at that time though - folks didn't believe him - anyway he used to tell me "If a scientist tells you one thing and your observation tell you something else - believe your observations". So it is a good rule for scientists - although not many follow it.
Have a nice day
Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
587 Posts
I agree Paul sometimes we the guides are not part of the discussion on management or considered the "Unwashed" but in this case the guides are wrong and so is the US for blocking the river to alewives.
Hi Perry
The guides are not wrong in their observation about the decline of SMB numbers so there is the issue. The cause doesn't seem well defined - Scientists need get in there and see what is the problem. My say at least!
Have a nice day
Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,687 Posts
I tend to disagree. While there no doubt has been poor science spread around in the past (and will be in the future), it is easy to tell the difference between good and poor science, and if the science-community as a whole accepts a piece of work (i.e. the peer-review process), then it is likely ok. Not to mention that good science will always state when there are uncertainties.

Fine examples are both the cod collapse and major declines in Pacific salmon. Most people believe that the scientists has it all wrong. In actuality, there was a fair amount of well-documented evidence to suggest that these collapses were likely to happen. The message was lost as it moved through the system (bureaucratic and political interference), and after the difficulties of setting quotas, considering unemployment etc., that advise was basically ignored. Too many people take an conspiracy-theory approach to fisheries science, and that is unfortunate!
so true why are we all so paranoid? Or maybe we just like a scape goat so we can place blame somewhere.
Apoint for you
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,687 Posts
I saw the show and still am shakeing my head. The idea that alewives are an non native invasive species that are impacting on a native species says it all!! The studies that show a healthy population of alewives provide forage for numberous species in the ocean show that the collasp of species that utilize alewives as a food source when the alewives are reduced in numbers. The arguements that claimed the negetive impact of alewives were based on opinion. I agree Paul sometimes we the guides are not part of the discussion on management or considered the "Unwashed" but in this case the guides are wrong and so is the US for blocking the river to alewives.
If I am shakeing my head Eddie you must be in shock! LOL
All I know is when the khiaks are running the smallies down here get big fat bellies and become agressive. So I throw a fluke and hold on yeehaw! Seems like they don't hurt our smallies or pickies down in SWN too much but what do I know. I think some opinions and observations were biased as the US gov is solely looking to help they're wallets and take the firt info given without really checking things out will come back to bit'em for sure IMO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,687 Posts
Ah yes Halfyard but this is a problem the scientists have to look out for. Most are so sure of them selves they wouldn't go talk with a guide. Maybe the guide knows something they don't and his input wouldn't help the next funding application they are making!
I worked with scientists for a number of years and let there be no mistake the next funding is right up there with the important issues.
I once worked with a renowned scientist many years ago whose theories are nowadays daily presented in the media. Not at that time though - folks didn't believe him - anyway he used to tell me "If a scientist tells you one thing and your observation tell you something else - believe your observations". So it is a good rule for scientists - although not many follow it.
Have a nice day
Paul
you make a good point as well Paul too bad the two sides couldn't put their biasis( and own needs) aside and work together for the the most impt part of the equation= the fish

cheers
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
767 Posts
I watched Land and Sea on Sunday as the topic was about Smallmouth Bass and how they interact with Alewife on the St Criox River. There is a major dispute going on regarding the negative impact the Alewife have on the Smallmouth on the river and lakes that feed into it.

The arguments are that the USA wants to stop the Alewife run as they believe that it is harming the Smallmouth fishery and the Canadian government wants them to run the river freely for ecological reasons. I'm not getting into the argument of which is correct as I do not have enough facts to formulate an informed opinion yet.

What I do find amazing however is that the US government is doing things to protect the SMB fishery as they see it as a major economic boost. While here in the Maritimes everything is being done to discredit it. Go figure......
The real issue is that the St. Croix river is a "boundary water" which cannot be treated or affected as if it were in in one country only. But the fact is that, one more time, a yankee government acted unilaterally to affect something they had no right to treat as their private property.
Canada was not consulted, as required by international law, and, I have no doubt, would have been ignored anyway if it hadn't kow-towed to Maine.

The international water rights are the real issue here, not the bass and the gaspareau. Don't let get's sidetracked. The issue of the gaspareau being the downfall of the bass population is specious and silly, anyway. But even if it weren't hogwash, it would still give the yanks no legal or moral right to do what they did. Not that that has ever stopped them before, and in far more egregious and bloody outrages than this small offense.

chuck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
806 Posts
i don't know the science at all.but i honestly can't think how the gasperau lake would fair without them in it.anouther thought is this. i've witnissed both species spawning, and imho , they do not spawn in the same areas.gasperau in muddy ''weedy'' areas, the bass on clay flats. so how the young are starving each other out ,i don't know.i realize that young hide in vegetation , but the vegetation is different in both bottom compositions, and therefore i feel the young are in different areas for the most part. i don't track young of the year, so i could be proven wrong here quite easily, but it's just my thoughts!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
767 Posts
Hi onthesqr
I didn't see the program so cann't comment on it.
However I would have thought the damage would have been the other way around. The SMB reducing the alewives. The SMB really feed on the small alewives in the summer - some rivers like the Lahave, it appears to be the SMB main forage fish. I guess it shows things are not always what they seem and Department of Fisheries can have different opinions - not much wonder we have differences on this group.
Enjoy the day
Paul
The difference of opinion here lies with professional Maine smallmouth guides, not DoF.

cheers,

chuck
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
767 Posts
Hi
I found an interesting site devoted to the question.
http://www.ijc.org/rel/st-croix-alewife/
It is long and tedious but seems the American DOF does not think Alewives contributed to a down turn in SMB numbers but anglers did.
Not the first time DOF and Anglers did not agree!
The report could be used to argue both sides of the question as we all know how the CBC likes to enlarge US - CAN differences no doubt they could have picked and choosed here!
Have a nice day
Paul
As I said earlier, there is no science to back up what the professional yankee guides [ not ordinary anglers] claimed. Not even any yankee science from their own DoF.

And since the "issue" here is not whether professional Maine smallmouth guides [friends of yours?] have any science [the do not] to back up their assertions [aka, "argument"], the true issue is Canadian sovereignty and yankee unilateral treatment of boundary waters. Which contravenes international law, and display complete contempt for Canada and for international law.

So there is no "picking and choosing" here, just as there was no "picking and choosing" with regard to soft-wood lumber, and there is no "picking and choosing" wrt the North-West Passage. Not to mention too, too many other examples.

But of course anybody can see that the issue is not yankee contempt for for us and the law--we're used to that. And although some might choose to believe that gaspareau and bass are the issue, that's hokum, too.

The real issue, as you point out, Paul, is that that rotten commie-loving pinko socialist Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had the unmitigated gall to point this out to us for no better reason than to getus a little ticked at our warm and loving friends to the south.

cheers,

chuck
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
767 Posts
You can see the episode HERE

This has been a hot topic at recent fisheries conferences I've attended. Just goes to show how much polarity there still is regarding invasives, dams and native-fish management.

I know the author of a recent report sent to congress, and there was a lot of 'skimming over' in that show. However, they did metnion the most important fact of there being virtually no evidence to support the assumptions of the guides that Alewife negatively impact the non-native bass. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they do not! It is the old issue of 'causation vs. correlation'. Just be cause the SMB popn's took a dip at about the same time that there were good numbers of alweife returning does not mean that the alewife caused that dip.

The thing that really surprised me is that the State of Maine sided with the unsupported opinions of those guide over the well-supported evidence presented by science.
It's the same ol' same ol', Eddy. Jobs 'n' votes.

cheers,

chuck
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
767 Posts
I tend to disagree. While there no doubt has been poor science spread around in the past (and will be in the future), it is easy to tell the difference between good and poor science, and if the science-community as a whole accepts a piece of work (i.e. the peer-review process), then it is likely ok. Not to mention that good science will always state when there are uncertainties.

Fine examples are both the cod collapse and major declines in Pacific salmon. Most people believe that the scientists has it all wrong. In actuality, there was a fair amount of well-documented evidence to suggest that these collapses were likely to happen. The message was lost as it moved through the system (bureaucratic and political interference), and after the difficulties of setting quotas, considering unemployment etc., that advise was basically ignored. Too many people take an conspiracy-theory approach to fisheries science, and that is unfortunate!
Well said, Eddy.

cheers,

chuck
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
767 Posts
Hi Perry
The guides are not wrong in their observation about the decline of SMB numbers so there is the issue. The cause doesn't seem well defined - Scientists need get in there and see what is the problem. My say at least!
Have a nice day
Paul
NO, the decline of the SMB is NOT the real issue. It's the excuse used by guides losing money to create the real issue; i.e., US violation of international treaties and agreements with Canada--one more time.

Trying to sell us the notion that the decline in SMB in a part of Maine is "the issue", is, forgive the expression, dragging in a "red-herring'.
{I wonder if 'red-herrings' are 'commies'-- like the CBC?}


cheers,

chuck
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top