bigugli Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 I used to fish the canal from a boat when allowed. Now I fish it from shore. Different challenge thats all. I have hugely successful days on different stretches of the old canal for perch, pannies, bass, on hard and soft water. As for changing city policy, you need a large groundswell of support from residents before you will convince anyone in council to revisit the issue. Current usage is bringing money into the economy. Will the fishing community be able to do the same. The repairs on the wall were to the entire causeway linking the island. As for activity on the Rec. its the usual April- October deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogliq2 Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 I am from Welland, and was totally underwhelmed by the efforts of the angling community to preserve the rec waterway as a fishery. The apathy showed by fishermen caused me to give it up as a lost cause as well. I have always said that if the city of Welland should have put in a hi volume pump at the rowing club end, and block off the canal with fencing at the Port Robinson end. This slight current would have made it possible to stock any number of species of fish in there. In that case, I would not have been totally opposed to paying a municipal fishing license to use it, with a say, a 2 fish limit. My argument for taking this direction was that creating a really great fishery would benefit the whole community, making Welland a vacation destination, summer and winter, Not just a target for day trips and overnighters that only benefit the Best Western and Tim Hortons. The city of welland can't even support a bait shop for cryin' out loud ... Just my humble opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longmayyourun Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 I think it is a good idea to have a recreational waterway, without power boats. A refuge and a niche destination for those who prefer a quiet paddle or angling from a canoe or kayak. Anglers with power boats have many areas they can go. I enjoy getting away from the buzz of motors at the the harbour at Charles Daley Park for example. Diversity in recreational activity is important also. I don't think the rationale was to prevent fishing by the Welland City council. You cant be all things to all people. I see the parallel in letting ATVS or snowmobiles in a certain area, like one side of the Canal, and hikers on the other side. Multiuse can sometimes result in multiproblems. Other examples of this type of good will would be providing skate parks for skate boarders, areas for scuba diving etc. Waterways can be treated like landuse planning in many ways. Smart planning I think... Whirlpool... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 When this whole ordeal went down, there was very little if any support from the fishing community. I remember some past NFN'ers posting relentlessly about the subject at hand with very little support. Who's to blame? I don't think anyone. People have to understand that money talks. If someone could have come up with a reason why anglers would bring in more money rather than dragon boat races....I hope you see my point. Take a look at the Henley Regatta here in St. Kitts. They just asked city council for $450,000 for upgrades to the course and $250,000 for a weed harvester to clean up the pond. Excuse me, but that's MY tax money going for something that does absolutely nothing for me or my family. Oh, but it will bring in money to the area. Sure....IF I owned a business related to the regatta or something in PD. Besides, a weed harvester can be rented. Why the hell do they need to own one? So no matter how you look at it, it is a lost cause. It has been passed and it would take nothing short of a miracle to even get council to let a maximum of a 9.9 on the Rec. But it's funny how anyone associated with the dragon boat races or the Henley are allowed to cause erosion with these boats.... Politics my friends. You have the coin and the friends in the right places, council will listen. You have a dream and no coin..... NEXT!!! It's a part of life that has no rhyme nor reason, but then again....we're just here to pay the taxes and go with the flow.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diltsy Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 It was said before, If enough Wellanders make enough noise... our voices can't go unheard. They can't just say no they have to hear what we have to say. If we can find enough people that want the right to have their boat in there then protest if they aren't listening... I'm thinking get everyone in a boat block up the water way so no dragon boats get by or rowers, lol. That is a bit extreme but you get the point, we do have a voice and it is our city... we pay our taxes. I am definitely willing to try if there are people with the same opinion, and will be there for every meeting. I am waiting for someone who went through this whole situation before to speak up!! But it seems like you all have given up hope on the situation, why not just try to give it another try? It is for most the "off" season for us fisherman except for the hardcore ice fishermen. So is there anyone out there??? What is it going to take for me to get those fires inside you all burning again?!??! P.S. What's up with this topic? It doesn't move at all and doesn't show any activity on the main page, no one can see the excitement going on inside? I think maybe because it was moved from another spot?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigugli Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 This is the appropriate forum for this discussion. Have you pm'd anybody involved in previous efforts? As for lack of topic interest, few people today are actually willing to step in, make a commitment and get involved. With 1000 members we can't even put together 20 members for a swill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captnn Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 Diltsy. If you don't mind, how old are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diltsy Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 I am 23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longmayyourun Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 Good point by Tom. I agree that electric motors on small craft such under 14 ft would not impact on the waterway in terms of noise, erosion etc. It would also allow those that are physically challenged to access the water by canoe, inflatables or other small craft. Perhaps an ammendment on that part of the bylaw would be a good compromise. Whirlpool... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emenius Posted November 29, 2008 Report Share Posted November 29, 2008 i myself am 24 and remember fishing in many different boats in the canal as a kid, it was a spring routine in the end of april to get the boat ready for the summer go out and wet a line. inherited my 12 footer at 13 and was in as often as i could get it down there. now i have to use the river don't get me wrong the fishing is better water is warmer and people well theres alot less of them. but this argument can go on for days, i openly female dog about not being able to launch my boat in the canal but then on the other hand simple boating in the canal has killed people. then again there was even that man who died when his canoe capsized so maybe there is no perfect solution to the cluster **** of a problem created by the almighty dollar. simply put a day late and a dollar short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Andrews Posted December 1, 2008 Report Share Posted December 1, 2008 The problem seems to be that it has a sister waterway that runs right along beside it and boats are allowed, the habitat is good and the fishing is getting better. Some see that as accommodating both sides and some only see the "You can't fish here" as a barrier that must be challenged. IMHO it was a few that spoiled the harmony and the side they represented lost. We all need to learn a lesson from it and move on because as cptn said, we had our chance, they tried to rally the troops and only a few responded. Read my signature. Sticky makes a good point though. Just another symptom of the sportsman losing touch with the sporting club. If you want the media to make it common knowledge you have to show them its important to you and explain why. But if you just shut up and fish........ well read my sig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninepointer Posted December 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2008 Sorry if I opened a can of worms by starting this thread. At this point I am neither for or opposed to the existing motor ban. I was just hoping to get a better understanding of the reasons behind the motor ban and determine if those reasons were valid/justifiable, before I form an opinion on the ban. Unfortunatley I don't think I'm any further ahead in my knowledge. Perhaps only the City and the WRCC truly know the answers. As we know, "motor-free" is part of the the City's/WRCC's official vision for the waterway. That vision, the review of which included a public consultation process, may in fact be a good one. In such case, a "motor-free" approach should be able stand up on its own merits. End of story. However, it has been suggested to me that the City/WRCC piled on additional "concerns" about safety, erosion & noise as a way to further justify the direction they have taken, but that these additional concerns are more contrived than they are fact. My understanding of the safety issue leads me to believe that restrictions on craft type and motor size would have adequately addressed the real concerns. Noise concerns? This isn't a mist-on-the-lake-call-of-a-loon setting. I have some experience with noise impacts/mitigation and I would suggest that the existing urban ambient (background) noise levels are already quite high. I find it hard to hang a hat on "loss of tranquility". Erosion? I guess this is the issue that I'm really wondering about. Has this actually been examined in a qualified technical way? Would small motorized craft create/aggravate an erosion problem or is the "erosion problem" just smoke & mirrors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Andrews Posted December 3, 2008 Report Share Posted December 3, 2008 Opening a can of worms is what we fisherman do. Don't ever stop questioning things that concern us. Guys like you are an asset to our community. I wish you and many others were on the site when it was going on. There just wasn't enough involvement from our side. If we had come out like we did for the firearms issue in Grimsby, it might have turned out differently but from what I hear about the Welland Mayor and Council, they already had other plans and were going to see them through anyway. I believe you are absolutely correct about their reasoning being bogus. I feel its too late now myself though. Especially with the Welland River right there for fishing. If they had presented the motor ban as a compromise and were honest about their intentions, I may have agreed anyway. I didn't submit a letter to Council because I was on the fence and I couldn't make the meetings so I myself have no desire for recourse. It's a good inquiry guys. This isn't beating a dead horse and we can learn by revisiting topics like this one once in awhile. To bring it back to Council might be another story but don't be afraid to open a can of worms here. Just discuss these issues like gentleman and we'll benefit from the shared info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diltsy Posted December 3, 2008 Report Share Posted December 3, 2008 I believe you are absolutely correct about their reasoning being bogus. I feel its too late now myself though. Especially with the Welland River right there for fishing. If they had presented the motor ban as a compromise and were honest about their intentions, I may have agreed anyway. I didn't submit a letter to Council because I was on the fence and I couldn't make the meetings so I myself have no desire for recourse. What I don't get is why people keep saying it's too late? How can it possibly be too late? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigugli Posted December 3, 2008 Report Share Posted December 3, 2008 What I don't get is why people keep saying it's too late? How can it possibly be too late? Can you round up 100 residents of Welland to fill council chambers to get council to listen? It takes a packed house of area voters to get council to change their mind. But first you have got to get the council clerk, or an alderman to put you on the agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captnn Posted December 3, 2008 Report Share Posted December 3, 2008 What I don't get is why people keep saying it's too late? How can it possibly be too late? If you think that you can turn this around I wish you all the luck in the world. Call your councillor and see what he says. As for me I could care less. I am quite satisfied with fishing Lakes Erie and Ontario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Andrews Posted December 3, 2008 Report Share Posted December 3, 2008 And I'm still on the fence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.