Nova Scotia Fishing Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
806 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
the other day i was shore fishing for smallies with my father , we began discussing a couple that keeps every large bass that they catch . i replied that , i know they're breaking the law ,but i must give them credit to being able to catch all those fish . my father entusiasticly responded back that they we're not being conservation minded , and should not be even classified as anglers !got me thinkin' .what does angler mean . catch a-lot of fish , or catch fish with a conservstive mind set ETC. what is it ?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
1,353 Posts
An angler is anybody with a rod fishing. The angler is then defined by their actions. A good angler, An illegal angler, conservation minded angler, etc. Same I guess as a driver: good driver, bad driver.
 

·
Member
Joined
·
457 Posts
as long as they are keeping their limit when legally aloud too i would say responsible angler
if they are keeping over their limit or keeping fish out of season they are a illegal angler
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
806 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
i'm guessing that most of the people on this site also hunt . i'm only 37 , so i'm only going onhear say and speculation here. was the mainland moose not very popular and abundant in nova scotia at one time? the way i'm told , the white tail population then came in , carrying the brain worm , resulting in the mainland moose to be a protected species. a shame , but never the less , it is done , and almost everyone loves watching , seeing , and hunting the whitetail deer.i truly feel for your woes about the declining trout population , andi respect the oppinions , brought to the forum on them. i realize that i might be stepping on toes here , but as the deer situation , it is what it is ! i also think it is a tradgidy not to admire the tanacity of the evasive that is actually hated by some to the point that they wish eradication should somehow be an option .it is already done like it or not . there is also some places where they live together quite well . panuke lake is an example , i can hardly go fishing bass tackle there and not catch trout!which brings up anouther point.when a trout fisherman catches a 10 inch fish , the normal scenario is to put that catch in their possesion and go home and enjoy the meal. the bass fisherman catching a 10 inch bass lickly scenario , will put it back in the water . which species has a stronger chance , the bones in the compost , or the more educated bass swimming a nd eating still.change is just that, like it or not , it will happen. the memmories of a very young child about deer , were that they were blamed for the loss of the moose {again , i'm going by a long ago memory of that}change then happened and the whitetail is a beloved part of our forests.i'm with the group hoping that one day the bass , and yes unfortunately to me too , the piclerel , will also be appreciated and not thought of how to be eradicated.so again i respect your love for N.S. natural, and native creatures, i also love the evasives as well . P.S.- remember that you are probably an evasive yourself and not a native of this land. if you are native than i do appoligize for that comment!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
767 Posts
Ok, lets try again.... Be careful not to confuse the management and enhancement of a non-native sportfish species as conservation, it is not. Although the act of keeping the large bass may have been illegal, and therefore can not be condoned; I would question the statement that they are not conservation minded. Bass have been introduced illegally in all but four watersheds in Nova Scotia, that makes them an invasive in most of their current range in Nova Scotia. Among the many threats facing our native species in Nova Scotia Invasives rank somewhere near the top. To the point where management and conservation decisions are made by DFO and DFA partially based on whether they are present or not. As invasives are by definition a non native species that has become established in an ecosystem that threatens the survival of native species, removing them from most systems, legal or not; would be an act of conservation.
Oh, puh-leeeze, bugman! This is getting so tiresome--you post your unfounded opinions, based entirely on hearsay, in which you call, by implication, for the slaughter and eradication of any species you don't particularly like. You always try to justify yourself by using words like 'invasives', but you never condemn the brown and rainbow trout in our waters, which are every bit as invasive as any smallmouth bass. So your 'invasive' argument, for what little it's worth to begin with, is shown up for the hypocritical sham that it really is.

Your next argument, again simply plucked out of the air to suit your fancy, is that smallmouth bass [and chain pickerel] are terribly destructive to "native species", by which you refer to brook trout and maybe salmon, only -- [you obviously can't include brown trout and rainbow trout, or even the Sebago {Maine} variety of land-locks with which our waters are currently re-stocked]-- with no care for white suckers, bullheads, etc.etc. Native fish which were blamed, before the coming of the bass and pickerel, for the decline of 'native species'[i.e. trout and salmon], called 'trash fish', and which even today are regularly 'tossed in the bushes' by trout-loving 'sportsmen'.

Science has shown us in study after study that the main reasons by far for the decline of brooky and other fish population are 1/habitat destruction, and 2/overfishing. These two are way out in front of anything else. So why do we never hear you howl about corporate forestry, fishing, farming, and mining practices? Maybe they scare you, but a fish doesn't?

After man, the most destructive animal, as far as native trout and salmon are concerned, are hatchery brook trout and salmon. There is science to back this up. And finally, [and there is even more science on this], it is and was the introduction of brown trout [to make up for decimated brook trout populations] back in the 1800's, that destroyed most remaining native brook trout populations along the east coast of N.A. Never ever hear you mention brown trout. Especially never in the terms you reserve for bass and pickerel-[and possibly suckers, etc.].

Now where is the science to back up your non-stop assertions that bass and pickerel are responsible for the decline of wild brook trout, in N.S. or anywhere else? I've researched the net for solid evidence to that effect, but have found none. None at all. Just scientists who allow that invasives fish species, generally speaking, sometimes mess up ecosystems, and so maybe, just maybe, smallmouth bass and chain pickerel mess up populations of native brook trout that haven't already been messed up by habitat damage, overfishing, and hatchery fish. No evidence, just a 'politically correct' speculation.

I love brook trout, [at least the the ones that don't get dumped out of a truck], just as much as anyone. But railing away at other species isn't going to fix the native trout's problems. That's just 'scapegoating'. And a way to avoid coming to grips with the real causes of them.

For anyone who doesn't know me, I dislike scoff-laws of every kind, including 'bucket biologists' and the like. And I really don't like getting my flies bitten off by chain pickerel. So anybody who introduces chain pickerel anywhere is on my 'sh-t' list. And the same for bass, even though these days, when I can't get back to the wild trout anymore, smallies are my favourite.

But your "kill 'em all" attitude, constantly repeated here, turns my stomach.

Now Perry, as he always does when I argue against you, will erase this post. But at least I'll feel better for speaking out against your 'blame the bass, blame the pickerel' attitude one more time. And some people may get to read it before it's gone. I hope.

chuck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
806 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
well thankfully i got to read it , and thanks , i never thought about the rainbow and brown scenario , food for thought !
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
1,353 Posts
OK, as moderator I really don't have to give reasons for deleteing or edit posts so as a rule I don't. In this case Chuck Fluff you are saying I favour one member over another by deleteing your posts and not wiwfrm's. Not so I delete by site rules. Sometimes you as members only see what you want to see and do not read the part that breaks the rules.
This thread has to a degree becomed highjacked which I suspect was not the intended response by the member who started it.
I would suggest if you wish to continue this discussion lets not let it become another invasive discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
806 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
no that wasn't the intent , i wasn't around for the invasive issue you talk about, sounds heated though! as an executive of a club i know what your saying about the posts however. to go off course a bit , it does put a smile to my face , when i think about the rest of the country thinking that we have no fresh water game except salmon worth persueing . yet here we are talking and defending different species within the province.this hereby showing diversification in the fishery. perry there's a saying amongst the executives in our club ''can't please everybody and won't go crazy tryin'!''
 

·
Member
Joined
·
457 Posts
ok so let all agree to disagree
the invasive topic has been beaten to death here so lets drop it
because until we can all work together and respect each others opinion
all we accomplish is to further divide the angling community

so ill just say a few things and then back to the true angler topic
i think personal opinions are great we all have them but thought needs to be given
to whether or not they should or should not be voiced sometimes
i myself have some pretty strong ones and if i happened to put them out there
when ever i got the urge i wouldn't be welcome on any site

also one more thing everyone should have a quick reread of the terms and conditions
terms & conditions
expecially the trolling
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
767 Posts
OK, as moderator I really don't have to give reasons for deleteing or edit posts so as a rule I don't. In this case Chuck Fluff you are saying I favour one member over another by deleteing your posts and not wiwfrm's. Not so I delete by site rules. Sometimes you as members only see what you want to see and do not read the part that breaks the rules.
This thread has to a degree becomed highjacked which I suspect was not the intended response by the member who started it.
I would suggest if you wish to continue this discussion lets not let it become another invasive discussion.
Perry-

Not so. I said you deleted my responses to bugman. You do. I did not say that you did not delete bugman's posts, for the very good reason that I saw that you deleted his previous post when you deleted my response to it.

Before that, I cannot say. But I certainly did not mean to imply that you played favourites, and I certainly did not say so outright. I'm sorry that you took it that way.

As for 'the rules', that is becoming less and less clear to me as this site seems to be swinging from 'highly conservation conscious' to 'toss the bass and pickerel!! permissive'.

I hope that this is a false impression, and that the rules still call for the editing of posts which call for violation of the Wildlife Act, either openly or by insinuation that 'trash fish', 'invasives', or what you will, should be slaughtered at every opportunity, their corpses discarded like Tim Horton's cups. All in the name of "protecting" brook trout/salmon which, in fact, such a practice does not do. Not at all. What it does do is foster a general contempt for some animals to the point of endorsing their 'killing for killing's sake', and then makes littering sound like sportsmanship.

If you want me to stop arguing against those who promote the above practices, then erase their posts [assuming that they do violate the site rules] before I see them. If they do not violate the rules, then surely my responses don't either?!?!

But I do not wish to get into an argument with you--not as a person nor as a moderator. As I said, I'm sorry that you interpreted part of my post as an attack on your integrity. I would never do that.

chuck
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
767 Posts
I wouldn't complain about bass, as long as they're range was considered, agreed to, and then controlled. I believe efforts need to be made to limit or eradicate them from waters where they are not officially sanctioned. In those systems, they are a threat to biodeversity - a dominant preditor with no natural control. And it's not only the trout who suffer, it's the suckers, the perch and so on. We need to do something about all the issues threatening our native species, and this is just one of them.
Hi;

Do you have any science to back up your assertion wrt smb, that they negatively affect biodiversity. That is, in healthy ecosystems where the real impact is not man-made? I'd love to read it.

And I have the same hope for your son. I just don't believe that if brook trout are wiped out, it will be the fault of any fish.

chuck
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
767 Posts
ok so let all agree to disagree
the invasive topic has been beatin to death here so lets drop
beacuse until we can all work together and respect each others opinion
all we accoplish to further divide the angling community

so ill just say a few things and then back to the true angler topic
i think personal opinions are great we all have them but thought needs given
to wether or not they should or should not be voiced sometime
i y self have some pretty strong ones and i happend to put them out there
when ever i get the urge i wouldnt be welome on any site

also one more thing everyone should have a quick reread of the terms and conditions
terms & conditionsterms & conditions
expecially the trolling
Hi;

Well said. And after all this site has gone through wrt to the 'pickerel/bass vs salmonids' issue, I would say that anyone who brings it up again is trolling. Just my humble opinion.

cheers,

chuck
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
767 Posts
Interesting read, thanks. Which parts do you believe support your contention that smallmouth bass damage healthy ecosystems in N.S., and have a seriously detrimental effect on populations of wild N.S. brook trout and salmon?

One thing I learned from this study [if true] is that smb become piscivorous at 50mm. Studies I've read have always said that they become piscivorous at +200mm. At any rate it also says that brook trout and salmon larger than [drat, I can't find it] are rarely eaten by smb, and since they spawn in cold flowing streams, and don't enter lakes and large slow rivers where smb spawn until they are much larger, the amount of direct predation on N.S. salmonids is questionable. As the authors themselves admit,[even though their original intent, {transparently obvious in their language} in making the study had the opposite goal in mind], "There is considerable literature that clearly demonstrates that smallmouth bass prey on salmonids. However, the ultimate effect on salmonid abundance is not so clear." Actually, if you read CAREFULLY, there is NO evidence of large scale direct predation on salmonids. One interesting note, if juvenile Atlantic Salmon migrate to the ocean when the water is cold, [and I suspect that they do], then they they have nothing to fear from smb since bass are largely inactive in water below 10 c. They certainly have nothing to fear coming back, and bass do not spawn where salmon spawn. The authors admit [to their deep chagrin, I don't doubt], "Timing of juvenile salmon runs and spatial habitat overlap with bass are important considerations. Heavy predation may be avoided if migrating salmon can move through water bodies containing smallmouth bass when water temperatures are still low and bass are less active."

Anyhoo, the real problem with the article is that it is a collection of "sound bites", i.e., passing references to actual studies done in the past bgy other people in other places, without being a real study of its own. Much is mentioned, much is implied, much is assumed. Nothing, so far as I can tell, directly proves your contentions wrt the terrible impact bass have on brook trout populations, particularly in N.S..

I do like this actual scientific study from N.B., as found in the biblio.

http://www.unb.ca/cri/documents/NBCFWRU_Report_04_01.pdf

Unfortunately, for all their work, these guys don't seem to be able to make clear and definite statements about negative bass impact on brook trout and salmon, either.

But your link is a great start point for a rational discussion of the subject. Thanks for that. I urge everyone to read it. Just be sure to read it with an analytical and discriminating eye.

chuck
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
767 Posts
Actually I think you asked for proof that smallmouth bass effect biodiversity; which it does, but I am glad you liked it. Here is another you may like.

Potential Impact of Smallmouth Bass Introductions on Atlantic Salmon: A Risk Assesment
Hi;

Not quite. What I said was--"Do you have any science to back up your assertion wrt smb, that they negatively affect biodiversity. That is, in healthy ecosystems where the real impact is not man-made?". Which is quite different, really.

So again I ask, what parts of that series of references to other people's science done in other places at other times do you think supports your contention that smb negatively impact biodiversity in healthy ecosystems. But I guess I'd better first clarify what I mean by "negatively impact". That is, negative in what sense, and by whose criteria? Every change to any given state of biodiversity is not necessarily negative, and change of any kind can be negative or positive, depending upon the standards set for evaluation.

These days the major set of standards set for evaluation of negative change vs positive change [where fresh water game fish and and other fauna are concerned], is whether or not the old biodiversity is changed into a new biodiversity. That is, have new animals in a given locale displaced some or any of the animals in that particular locality? If they have, it is called, at least by today's fishery managers, a 'negative' impact. Some of the more extreme 'conservatives' might go so far as to call their mere presence, 'negative', even though their mere presence simply increases biodiversity!

Personally, I think that 'negative' and 'positive' impact should be based on more than trying to keep the biodiversity of an ecosystem unchanged from what it was 20, 50, 200, or 500 years ago. To me that seems ideologically, not objectively, driven. For me a better yardstick would be any increase or decrease in the general health of the individual animals included in the ecosystem. That is all animals, original and introduced, before and after the introduction, [intentional or accidental], of the 'newcomers'. A word not so prejudicial as 'invasives'.

My second criterion would be any increase or decrease in useful bio-mass.
By 'useful' I mean that which contributes to the overall well-being, i.e., productive functioning, of that particular bio-system. An increase in blue/green algae, for instance, would increase bio-mass in a negative fashion. OTH, an increase in the number and size of healthy, self-reproducing fish would be a positive increase in local biomass. A huge number of stunted, sickly perch replaced by the same weight of fewer, but larger and healthier perch, would be a positive change, even if the total biomass remained the same, or even decreased slightly.

I must caution you that, since knowledge in this field, as in others, tends to double every decade, I put little stock in most studies that are over 20 years old, and much prefer those that are less than ten.

Also, I was hoping that you would discuss your first link with me; not just post it and then drop it.

Also, I'll look at your second link, but the title 'don't impress me much'. "Potential" means 'possible', and 'possible' means almost nothing.
"Actual" means real, factual, observed and observable, and "actual" is what I like to see in science.

chuck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,687 Posts
while I believe chuck, bugman and micheal all make some good points and I agree with some but not all of each one's post, I believe sawlers point wasn't abt invaises but rather the poor attitude and blaten disreagrd of the rules by some anglers. I agree with him, even if your not a bass fisher you should still be concerned b/c individuals who take bass home when they shouldn't etc more than likely disrespect trout rules as well. I made this same point to a buddy I met and became friends with last yr ice fishing. There was a fisher on the ice notorious for poaching and taking more than his limit to fill his freezer soime fishers were pissed and talking abt it my buddy's opinion was he did't care to argue with the poacher b/c "it ws only stocked bows so who cares" but condoning this behavior isn't good b/c the same poacher has the same attitude towards natural brookies as well. I know this as a fact as my uncle went fishing with said poacher befor he really knew what he was like and said he'd never go agn.

The rules are the rules we don't get to choose which ones we get to respect and I think that was the whole piont of sawlers post

cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,687 Posts
My definition of a true angler:
one who respests all rules and regulations set out for all species and adheres to them eeven if they are not in accordance with ther own personal views. Said person seeks to change said rules to align with ther personal views through proper and legal channels eg rfa meeting and other public forums. Basically if you don't agree with the rules I am all infavor of being a vehicle of change through respectful and proper educated, actions and behavior. Blaten disregard for life of any fish is wrong, futile and not the answer to our growing problem with invaiseves. Our energies need to be put into education and lobbying dfo etc not wasting time bitchin abt it here. Now stop wasting my time and teach me somthing by sharing your knowledge of fishing that is what we should all be here for

end of
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
767 Posts
while I believe chuck, bugman and micheal all make some good points and I agree with some but not all of each one's post, I believe sawlers point wasn't abt invaises but rather the poor attitude and blaten disreagrd of the rules by some anglers. I agree with him, even if your not a bass fisher you should still be concerned b/c individuals who take bass home when they shouldn't etc more than likely disrespect trout rules as well. I made this same point to a buddy I met and became friends with last yr ice fishing. There was a fisher on the ice notorious for poaching and taking more than his limit to fill his freezer soime fishers were pissed and talking abt it my buddy's opinion was he did't care to argue with the poacher b/c "it ws only stocked bows so who cares" but condoning this behavior isn't good b/c the same poacher has the same attitude towards natural brookies as well. I know this as a fact as my uncle went fishing with said poacher befor he really knew what he was like and said he'd never go agn.

The rules are the rules we don't get to choose which ones we get to respect and I think that was the whole piont of sawlers post

cheers
Well said, girlfisher.

cheers,

chuck
 

·
Member
Joined
·
457 Posts
My definition of a true angler:
one who respests all rules and regulations set out for all species and adheres to them eeven if they are not in accordance with ther own personal views. Said person seeks to change said rules to align with ther personal views through proper and legal channels eg rfa meeting and other public forums. Basically if you don't agree with the rules I am all infavor of being a vehicle of change through respectful and proper educated, actions and behavior. Blaten disregard for life of any fish is wrong, futile and not the answer to our growing problem with invaiseves. Our energies need to be put into education and lobbying dfo etc not wasting time bitchin abt it here. Now stop wasting my time and teach me somthing by sharing your knowledge of fishing that is what we should all be here for

end of
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
587 Posts
Hi All
Good points made by all in a respectable way. You can learn a lot just by listening.
Now we got from thoretical to practice. The Lahave River Salmon Association is having a meeting on Wednesday night about shutting down all angling on the Lahave. Someone from that organization could explain the reasoning - I'm not sure and don't wish to get it wrong.
However here we have chain pickerel spilling out of Lake Paul and have taken over the Sherbrooke river right down to the lake. How do I know? I talk with anglers. No study needed, scientific or otherwise. You can bet the farm there wouldn't be many smolts coming out of that river while they are there.
Now the good folks at LRSA want the anglers off the river. Do they realise the anglers are the salmons only defense at this point. At least we can find out where the cp are and some are removed from the system.
Reminds me of the old story about Rome burning while the ruler fiddled.
Anyone any suggestions what to do about this practical problem?
Have a nice day
Paul
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top