Red and the hogs

[wallymarss]

Hey cat"illac man Hows's the fishing these day's

["Cat"illac man]

>Hey cat"illac man Hows's the fishing these day's
Overall, action for 'eyes has been on the slow side.
We've had some decent sessions, with a few good fish, but like I said, it's much slower than what it's capable of.
There could be many reasons as to why it's been slow. One would have to take into account, that they are members of the aboriginal community, who are gill-netting in the Red! Were not sure exactly how many fish they're harvesting at this time, but it's a queations that needs to addressed, immediately!! Simply put, if their nets aren't catching many fish, then it would be safe to assume that the munbers of fish is low. On the other hand, if the nets are producing numbers, well I think that speaks for itself, doesn't it! If the latter is the case, then I will publicly state, that the time has arrived for "change"! The last time I did a reality check, I was convinced that we were living in the 21st century. So if this is indeed the case, then why do we allow practises, such as gill netting take place, in one of the top trophy producing fisheries in the history of angling. Something's definately wrong with this policy and it desperately need be addressed.

[wallymarss]

Where are they setting up their net's?

[Backwater Eddy]

I whole heartedly agree!

The netting of game-fish in a trophy fishery such as the Red River is crazy and monetarily foolish for the province of Manitoba and ALL it's residents.

The small personal gain by a few netters may easily damage the system as a whole. It may very well produce long term damage to the system and the regions tourism industry in general.

I would urge concerned individuals let the powers that be in Manatoba know how they feel about such practises in a loud and clear voice.

["Cat"illac man]

The netting activity taking place approximately 4 miles north of the big bridge.
Just to update those that are interested, I had a lengthy conversation with our fisheries branch today. Their response was positive, with respects to my suggestion about monitoring these nets
while they're being lifted. That's the only way we can accurately
access the damage being committed by this senseless act.
Like I stated earlier, if the nets are producing large numbers of fish and the anglers are finding the going slow, what does that tell us! On the other hand, if the nets aren't producing many fish, then were dealing with a much bigger picture.
That is why it is obsolutely imperative, that this information be obtained.

[Backwater Eddy]

Any new word on the nets, or the bite?

Ed "Backwater Eddy" Carlson...><sUMo>
Backwater Guiding

["Cat"illac man]

One positive bit of news that I'm pleased to mention regarding the pathetic netting activity and that is, the department is following up my request to monitor the amount of fish they're killing. This is the only way to retrieve information on their activity.
My personal thoughts on why the catch rates have been below standard these past couple of years, I honestly believe that the stocks are down in lake Winnipeg. If this is the case, there's a multitude of reasons as to why this happens. Natural cycles, poor year classes, over fishing by gil netters on the lake, low water flows, these are only a tiny fraction as to why things are slow. Fish stocks are constantly fluctuating and for many reasons. Sometimes the reasons are inflicted by man and sometimes they're inflicted by mother nature.
Then again, sometimes both are to blame!
I've spent many years pursuing the finney folks that inhabit the Red and I've seen a lot of incredible angling success during this time. I've also seen the leaner times, (such as were currently experiencing)
where those finney folks just weren't there in numbers.
The year 1999, was "one" of the greatest years we had experienced in recent memory. That year ten ponders never got a second glance! For more than twenty years now, I've seen good times and bad times.
It is my opinion, that this magnificent fishery, will be back on her feet in the very near future. When that day arrives, I plan on being here in order to greet her that day!

[Canadian]

The problem faced here in Canada is Treaty Rights. They have treaty rights that are law in this country and its only going to get worse.
I'm all for previous agreements but these days things have changed!

The same sort of thing happens here in Ontario in regards to Hunting. Anyone with treaty rights can go out and shoot any moose whenever they want and not respect the law because of treaty rights.
Thats fine and dandy if it was back a hundred years ago or more when these things had little impact on central aspect of things but with the advent of modern tools and equipment its really a slaughter.
Treaties were signed in the days you were a fool if you could even fantom of flying or driving a car....... but its not only cars now its ATV's and this leads us to serious management problems today.

The law is the law but things need to change, in 20yrs were all going to be up you know what creek without a paddle without saying enough is enough.

Go back 150yrs or so and tell me then that the population would be like it is today and the tools and equipment we have would be what it is right now?

2 wrongs don't make a right and with the world demanding equatily for everyone its time to make the change NOW before its too late.

["Cat"illac man]

Hey Canadian, "right-on"!

Obviously you posses the "intestinal fortitude" to speak your mind,
right-on!

[wallymarss]

What are the ice conditions

[Todd_NE]

Amen brother!

Yup, got her... feel that head shake!

["Cat"illac man]

In response to how thick is the ice!
Ice thichness on the Red is approximately fourteen to fifteen inches.
In a nutshell, it's in great shape and safe to travel on.
I wish I had a more positive or optimistic report on angling success, unfortunately I don't. The bite has been painfully slow, ever since we been experiencing this warm spell. Water quality (visibility) is extremely poor and in my opinion, this is the main reason as to why the bite isn't happening. When the temperature cools down and becomes more seasonal, the water quality should improve and so should angling success. (Living in this part of the world, I never thought I'd ever be hoping for colder weather conditions, go figure!)

Fish Hard Forever!

[Backwater Eddy]

I did read that deal on the "Clean Water Act" and what Mr Bush has in mind "Cat"illac man.

What a pile of greasy pelican poop that is....Eh!

$&#&@# pure Madness!

:(

"Backwater Eddy"..><sUMo>

[Backwater Eddy]

OK, For those who may think this "Clean Water Act" issue is just the chicken little ramblings of the liberal special interest groups, and "Anti's", you may wish to read this letter.
http://www.fisheries.org/AFS-CWAletter.shtml

(18 December 2002)

The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building, Room 3000
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

The Honorable George Dunlop
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
108 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310

The Honorable James L. Connaughton
Chairman, White House Council on Environmental Quality
730 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, DC 20503

Dear Administrator Whitman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary Dunlop, and Chairman Connaughton:

I am writing on behalf of the American Fisheries Society (AFS), the oldest and largest (9,000+ members) professional society representing fisheries scientists and managers. AFS is concerned about the Administration’s decision to draft new regulations under the Clean Water Act (CWA), redefining the waterways covered by the Act. Specifically, the new rulemaking process would determine whether certain waters, including tributaries, intermittent and ephemeral streams, and wetlands adjacent thereto, and other “isolated” wetlands, should remain under the jurisdiction of the CWA.

We urge the Administration not to proceed with rulemaking that would limit the scope of the Clean Water Act. Isolated wetlands, ephemeral streams, and tributaries are an integral part of our nation’s watersheds, and thus affect the health of all waters of the United States. Because non-navigable tributaries and their adjacent wetlands drain into larger bodies of water and groundwater sources, their degradation can negatively affect traditional navigable waters. Removing protections for non-navigable tributaries of navigable waters would also jeopardize many important wetlands that comprise significant fish and wildlife habitat, supporting a diversity of flora and fauna, in addition to providing enhanced water quality, flood attenuation, and groundwater recharge.

Crafting recovery plans for various fish species listed under the Endangered Species Act, e.g., Pacific salmon, is already complicated by the complex life history and the variations in life history (even within a single species) that finds juveniles of many species occupying small, often intermittent, streams during their critical fresh water rearing period. Without some consistent rules governing such habitats, especially as these tributaries cross state lines, the task will be made increasingly difficult. Many fish species including salmon are truly creatures of the watershed. Failure to consider rules governing all aquatic features and their relationship to aquatic processes – and thus to watershed integrity – does not bode well for recovery.

We have seen remarkable recovery in USA waters following passage of the CWA; and there is growing interest on the part of USEPA, States, Tribes, and Watershed Councils to better monitor, assess, report, and restore our waters. Removing CWA protections from some subset of our waters will set back these efforts substantially. It will further exaggerate existing discrepancies and inadequacies among state programs, instead of encouraging higher standards for all. The lack on inter-state coordination would militate against efficient and effective management strategies, would prompt conflict between downstream and upstream states, and would hurt state economies. In addition, it will turn us back to pre-CWA days when there were 50 or more differing and inconsistent standards across the USA, creating enormous financial subsidies and penalties for discharging municipalities, industries, and land uses.

Reducing federal jurisdiction over waterways of the U.S. would leave protections to state water programs, which, in many cases, are limited in regard to “isolated” wetlands, ephemeral and intermittent streams, and tributaries. In the past, states relied on the federal regulations in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and consequently developed no laws of their own to protect these wetlands and waterways. If the scope of the CWA is limited through the new rulemaking process, there will be few state regulations in place to prevent pollution and loss of wetlands from agriculture, commercial and residential development, resource extraction, and other activities.

The Administration based the need for a new rule-making process on the court case Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County vs. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC). The Supreme Court’s decision in this case narrowed the Clean Water Act’s wetland protections by invalidating the use of the “migratory bird rule” as a basis for the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency to assert CWA authority over isolated, intra-state non-navigable waters. AFS agrees that guidance is required for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to interpret and implement the SWANCC decision, but we believe that reducing CWA jurisdiction is unjustified.

AFS urges EPA and the Corps to communicate with state natural resource and regulatory agencies before moving forward with the new rule-making process. We need strong policy guidance on both regulatory and non-regulatory ways of protecting isolated wetlands and non-navigable tributaries, not a reduction in the strength and scope of the CWA.

Thank you for considering the comments of AFS, representing over 9,000 professional fishery scientists and managers.


Sincerely,


Gus Rassam, Executive Director, American Fisheries Society

CC: Senate Committees on Agricultural Nutrition and Forestry; Commerce, Science and Transportation; Energy and Natural Resources; Environment and Public Works. House Committees on Agriculture; Energy and Commerce; Resources; and Science.

------------------




Ed "Backwater Eddy" Carlson...><sUMo>
Backwater Guiding

[2FISHY4Y]

From an American and former commercial fisherman. Netting on the Red or for that matter any body of water needs to be eliminated or strictly controller; the latter being the least desirable option. One only needs to look at the decline of the fish populations in Minnesota and to a greater extent Wisonsin to realize that.

Having fished in Canada I will say that all in all you folks have done a great job. The last remaining thing is to work out a more palatable agreement with the various indian tribes.

Best regards and Merry Xmas,
Chuck