Author Topic: STOCKING LAKE O  (Read 6701 times)

Strike Zone

  • Full Box
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Gender: Male
Re: STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #45 on: July 21, 2021, 09:35:20 am »
Hmmm. Seems they also failed with the stocking of Atlantic’s previously. Note it also doesn’t state how many of each species were stocked out of the 5 million total.

“the failure to establish, by salmon culture, permanent or sizable populations of Atlantic or Pacific salmon in any of the Great Lakes in 1867-1965”
Quite true.  I never said they didn't.  My point was that Pacific's had been stocked, and failed, in the past.

Not sure why you guys are so dead against the Atlantic program.  It's a losing battle for you as the general public wants it.
Do you think it is affecting your Chinook stocking?  Both the US and Canadian side have said no.  So why does it seem to personally hurt you that BOTH governments have a mandate to try and reestablish a native species?



Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk
Personally I feel the public are being misled. This is a different strain if Atlantic’s. And the money better spent stocking cohos rainbows browns etc.

Again if you read the report you provided it states WHY the Atlantic’s were not successfully introduced for 100 years of effort. Again I ask you , what has changed to make a naturally surviving species of Atlantic succeed this time? The population, dams, water condition river temps have not reverted. Why do you think this will work now, with 10 most recent years of evidence and 100 years prior evidence of failure by almost any reasonable measure?

SpoonPullers.com

  • Advertisement
  • *****

Bob Webster

  • Full Box
  • *****
  • Posts: 526
Re: STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #46 on: July 21, 2021, 09:37:37 am »
Hmmm. Seems they also failed with the stocking of Atlantic’s previously. Note it also doesn’t state how many of each species were stocked out of the 5 million total.

“the failure to establish, by salmon culture, permanent or sizable populations of Atlantic or Pacific salmon in any of the Great Lakes in 1867-1965”
Quite true.  I never said they didn't.  My point was that Pacific's had been stocked, and failed, in the past.

Not sure why you guys are so dead against the Atlantic program.  It's a losing battle for you as the general public wants it.
Do you think it is affecting your Chinook stocking?  Both the US and Canadian side have said no.  So why does it seem to personally hurt you that BOTH governments have a mandate to try and reestablish a native species?



Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk
It just seems like these agencies are stuck in past, refusing to accept that the great lakes of 100 years ago do not exist.  In my opinion, the fisheries agencies need to accept data from their studies, be more open minded to what the systems can support, and get the best value from funding they are provided.

I can see niche value in programs like the Atlantic and aurora programs, but I don't think they fit the overall conditions of our freshwater systems in Ontario. My opinion.

Sent from my SM-G981W using Tapatalk
Valid point.
But they must do what the public wants, mostly.  And I think the Atlantic program will eventually succeed.  Water quality is still improving. 

Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk


Bob Webster

  • Full Box
  • *****
  • Posts: 526
Re: STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #47 on: July 21, 2021, 09:46:40 am »
Hmmm. Seems they also failed with the stocking of Atlantic’s previously. Note it also doesn’t state how many of each species were stocked out of the 5 million total.

“the failure to establish, by salmon culture, permanent or sizable populations of Atlantic or Pacific salmon in any of the Great Lakes in 1867-1965”
Quite true.  I never said they didn't.  My point was that Pacific's had been stocked, and failed, in the past.

Not sure why you guys are so dead against the Atlantic program.  It's a losing battle for you as the general public wants it.
Do you think it is affecting your Chinook stocking?  Both the US and Canadian side have said no.  So why does it seem to personally hurt you that BOTH governments have a mandate to try and reestablish a native species?



Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk
Personally I feel the public are being misled. This is a different strain if Atlantic’s. And the money better spent stocking cohos rainbows browns etc.

Again if you read the report you provided it states WHY the Atlantic’s were not successfully introduced for 100 years of effort. Again I ask you , what has changed to make a naturally surviving species of Atlantic succeed this time? The population, dams, water condition river temps have not reverted. Why do you think this will work now, with 10 most recent years of evidence and 100 years prior evidence of failure by almost any reasonable measure?
Don't believe you have a valid point here.
Atlantic's disappeared mostly because of water quality, especially in spawning rivers.  This has improved, as has the lake as a whole.

There has not been a sustained 100 yrs of stocking either.  Scattered attempts, most done without improvements to habitat.

The official webpage is very specific about the native strain being extinct.  In fact, it is the second tab in their" frequently asked questions" page.   No one is being mislead.


Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk


chopchop

  • Shaker
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Gender: Male
Re: STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #48 on: July 21, 2021, 11:18:06 am »
Where is the data that suggests the general public want Atlantics back in Lake Ontario?

The general public of the Lake Ontario fishing community are speaking on this forum and other public venues and as you can see, the support is not there.

Strike Zone

  • Full Box
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Gender: Male
STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #49 on: July 21, 2021, 12:45:47 pm »
Again, from the article you posted:

“Despite plantings of 5 million fry and fingerlings from Lake Ontario stocks in 1866-84, the native Atlantic salmon in Lake Ontario became extinct in the late 1800's primarily because tributaries in which they spawned were blocked by mill dams”

Says it all really. Despite efforts to clean up the rivers, where is the evidence that they are better now that when they planted 5 million in 1866-1884?  I would say that’s a pretty concerted effort with failure. Pretty sure most rivers are still blocked by some form of dam etc.

Bob Webster

  • Full Box
  • *****
  • Posts: 526
Re: STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #50 on: July 21, 2021, 03:46:12 pm »
Again, from the article you posted:

“Despite plantings of 5 million fry and fingerlings from Lake Ontario stocks in 1866-84, the native Atlantic salmon in Lake Ontario became extinct in the late 1800's primarily because tributaries in which they spawned were blocked by mill dams”

Says it all really. Despite efforts to clean up the rivers, where is the evidence that they are better now that when they planted 5 million in 1866-1884?  I would say that’s a pretty concerted effort with failure. Pretty sure most rivers are still blocked by some form of dam etc.
Well, let's look at the whole statement shall we, instead of picking an entirely out of context piece.

"Despite plantings of 5 million fry and fingerlings from Lake Ontario stocks in 1866-84, the native Atlantic salmon in Lake Ontario became extinct in the late 1800's primarily because tributaries in which they spawned were blocked by mill dams. Plantings of 13 million chinook salmon and landlocked and anadromous forms of Atlantic salmon in Lake Ontario and the other Great Lakes in 1873-1947 failed completely".

It specifically says "primarily because tributaries in which they spawned were blocked by mill dams".  How many mills are there today?

And you really believe the rivers are as dirty as they were at the turn of the century?  Or even the 60's for that matter?

Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk

Bob Webster

  • Full Box
  • *****
  • Posts: 526
Re: STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #51 on: July 21, 2021, 04:04:44 pm »
Where is the data that suggests the general public want Atlantics back in Lake Ontario?

The general public of the Lake Ontario fishing community are speaking on this forum and other public venues and as you can see, the support is not there.
The data is there.  Non Fishers, and many Fishers alike, do support it.  That would be why multiple DIFFERENT governments have supported the program.
This has gone from Conservative, to Liberal and back to the current Conservative government.  It is also supported federally AND provincially.
Not to mention international support, with the US on board as well.

It's also supported by many private organizations like Trout Unlimited Canada, Credit River Anglers, Metro East Anglers, Canadian Wildlife Federation, Ontario Streams ,  OFAH etc...

Who you got?  Darryl Cronzy?
The minority are you guys.

You have nothing new to add since this topic was hatched a couple years ago.  Bitch all your want.  It's a done deal.  And it's working ! 
Damn, you might actually have to catch one someday.... 

I'm done with the conversation.  Anyone want to go fishing?!

Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk


HBC

  • Full Box
  • *****
  • Posts: 1170
  • Gender: Male
Re: STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #52 on: July 21, 2021, 04:11:33 pm »
First of all, not sure what "public" wants the Atlantics in the lake.  Certainly not anglers - probably elitists that want to prove something to themselves.  Just like the phallic symbol that went near space yesterday.  Most of those that were involved in the stocking have nothing to do with fishing.

And opinion about "thinking" whether the creeks or rivers are cleaner today than they were in the 60's needs data so support that, not thought.  For sure there is a significant impact of urban sprawl on the rivers.  However the ATS program has certainly benefited the rivers with the cleaning and planting of trees.  100% benefit in that.

I'm only opposed on the monies that could be spent sustaining what we have, not someone's whim of bringing back something that became extinct.  This isn't Jurassic Park.

Strike Zone

  • Full Box
  • *****
  • Posts: 1220
  • Gender: Male
Re: STOCKING LAKE O
« Reply #53 on: July 22, 2021, 05:59:03 am »
Wow Bob. Do you really think there is a difference to  spawning ATS success ( lack of success) based on Mill dams versus the existing dams. And where are your FACTS to back up cleaner rivers now - not vs 1960 - but vs 1866-1884 when the 5 million stocked Atlantic’s (prior to extinction) failed to sustain a naturally reproducing planting. Again these fish became extinct in the late 1800’s not the 1960’s

Why also have the 49-50 years of learnings from the ATS program on St Mary’s river been ignored?  This screams vanity project with a way to attract sponsors and the general public to get the $1 million in marketing funds. But how much ministry funding has been wasted along the way?  …something something…those that do not study the past are doomed to repeat it….”

BTW, any good program has success and therefore failure / exit criteria. We know what the stated goal is ( naturally reproducing sustainable ATS fishery). But what is their exit strategy. When do they called time on the failed program and direct those funds to better support our existing fishery.

And for the record I have been fishing LO since 1993. I have caught a total of 5 Atlantic’s, the biggest 14 lbs. still not impressed and would take an equivalent sized coho any day in terms of fight (ymmv).

I get that various levels and parties have supported the program but they are not primary stakeholders. No one is denying ancillary benefits if stream rehab. But this could have all been done to support the existing fisheries for both lake and river anglers with similar public backing.

Anyway I’m going fishing.