Guest mean_drunk Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 ..as we suspected,guess what's been eating zebra mussels? an ally against the zebra mussels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Duker Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 Thats a pretty neat article mean_drunk. Sounds like a win/win situation for everything! Duke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottydog Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 Very nice post. Good to hear something can attack those mussells. Nice to see the sturgeon comeback. I used to catch alot at my cottage on Georgian Bay.Caught them at night with large dead smelt. Was a fight. A beautiful fish that is prehistoric. Good fishing. Scottydog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vidarling Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 Hey mean drunk, nice website and article., I have always been fascinated by sturgeon. Be sure to copy it and add it to your website. I have a Beautiful British Columbia Magazine that focuses on them. It just recently turned up again. If you have not seen it and would like it, please PM me your address and I will send it to you no problem. Cheers, Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest erie_guy Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 ...and so goes another species following in the footsteps of the Bald Eagle. They will become laden with heavy metals and other pollutants to the point that they are no longer fit for human consumption, then the concentrations will become high enough to disrupt the reproductive and spawning cycle. Those that do reproduce will give birth to genetic mutations poorly equiped to live in the natural environment and reproduce. Those that do reproduce lay eggs that will never hatch. Yeah this is really good news. Only time will tell. I hope I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chilli Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 This part really pisses me off. The fish is not endangered in Canada but it's nowhere nearly as plentiful as the monsters that were pulled ashore in such numbers around 1900 "that they couldn't sell them all and had to bury them in pits, my grandfather told me," Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mean_drunk Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 This part really pisses me off. 11059[/snapback] flood control dams also stopped them from reaching spawning grounds..it wasn't just overfishing.Hopefully the downward slide will stop with education... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest erie_guy Posted March 1, 2005 Report Share Posted March 1, 2005 Tommy, your post makes no sense. You're contradicting yourself. Maybe a quick history refresher will help. http://www.sustreport.org/lakes/lakes_timeline.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROB MCINTOSH Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 BOTTOM FEEDER'S : I don't care how many reports you guy's come up with they are all out dated and NO new studies have been isued since, it all comes down to the condition of the bottom of the lakes. Last year I was talking to NRP/OPP divers that put pigs on the bottom of lake ontario to do a study on decompoising humans in water temp you may have seen this on the discovery channel any way I seen footage of the bottom and you would be surprized all the reports of the lake being poluted are just reports to keep $$$$$ coming in to clean up the lake just another $$$$ grab but at some time this will stop because they will have no choice but to let every one know the truth about the shape of the lake, anyway the sturgon is making a comeback probably because of the condition of the lakes in the talk I had with the divers they told me when they stired up the bottom the sand changed colour a 1'1/2 down so to me if the contamenets are covered over by a 1'1/2 of sand and silt that could be the reason the sturgon are making a comeback because they are bottom feeders so they are not sucking up contamenents. Just my 2 cents Catfish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest erie_guy Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 You hit it right on the head Rob. The MNR has no plans or money allocated for sturgeon research. I contacted them and the DNR 2 years ago about doing radio tracking here in Fort Erie. DNR was quite interested and said they would see what they could get going if I could get the MNR on board. I told them not to hold their breath. MNR said to contact them once the project was ready to go and they would be happy to be involved. In other words, they wanted me, my present volunteer group FOFEC, and the U.S. to propose and design the project without a major stakeholder at the table, do all the work, then they would step in and criticize while taking the praise. I don't think so. Say bye, bye to that project. I realize they are a political football, but that's backward thinking in terms of poject management. Funny how the college grads instantly see this flaw, but the B.Sc's at MNR don't! (No disrespect intended, just an observation) IMHO, I think we should be putting our resources ($$$$) into eliminating what's going into the lake at this moment, not worry about what's buried under 45cm (1.5 ft) of sand and silt, unless there is an "Area of Concern" such as Hamilton Harbour. It's our wastewater treatment facilities, storm sewers linked with transportation and urbanization, and agricultural practices that are hurting our waters. No change in sight, so good luck. If you want to see how road runoff should be managed take a drive up the 407 near Trafalger. Tommy, you worry me son hahaha...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest erie_guy Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 Tommy, you may already know this, but if you want to see your company's numbers, or other companies go to the link below and type in your postal code at the top left of the page. In the past, I operated an industrial pollution control system for several years at Niagara Piston, in Beamsville. On the water issue everything usually went well. When it didn't we had a 150 g.p.m. water line at the final effluent. Dillution is the solution theory. I couldn't believe the MOE let them have the line. If things went bad with the air scrubber we were out out luck. Our main contaminants of interest (should read pollutants) were chromium hexavalent, nickel, and ph. No one said a word about VOC's or POC's. MOE showed up with a 24/7 composite sampler for our sewer line after they had a slug of chromium and nickel and god knows what else show up at the wastewater treatment facility. http://www.pollutionwatch.org/home.jsp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROB MCINTOSH Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 Hey Erieguy: I don't know if you have read any of my post on what should be put back in the lake but my thought is the pollution plants should release more back to the lake, now don't have a caniption fit here me out first, I don't mean dump raw sewage but treet it 2 or 3 times then release it back because when you do this you will be feeding the lake with what is needed to help fish fri servive, I have said it before how clean do you want the lake because if you don't do something about it now you will end up with a dead lake because you need food for fish to live. Catfish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest erie_guy Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 By that I assume you mean N-P-K. In particular, phosphorous. The number of bypass events at our wastewater treatment plants, along with combined sewer overflows take good care of the extra nutrients. You can get this information from the MOE. I've done a couple years of surface water sampling and analysis here in Fort Erie, and believe me our agricultural practices contribute significantly to the N-P content of our waterways. I've seen phosphorous 85 times the Provincial Water Quality Objectives for warm water environments (the operative word here is objectives), nitrogen at >3.5 times, with potassium being within guidelines on a consistent basis. This large overdose of P builds algae, which in turn pulls the dissolved oxygen below 2 mg/l (PWQO are 4 mg/l) When we talk to the MNR, no matter the issue, its the same statement every time. The water in Fort Erie's creeks is ponded in the summer, that's the cause. Additionally, if we maintained proper buffer zones along our waterways there would be sufficient nutrient and organic input via our streams and creeks to achieve equilibrium. These creeks and streams are major nurseries for fry. Go stand at the Crystal Beach boat ramp in August and tell the people you want to increase the phosphorous levels in Lake Erie...they'll stone you on the spot hahaha. The stench of rotting algae is something else. One of the major things I learned in college was that if you want to fix a waterbody you start at the headwaters of it's creeks and streams and work downstream because all waterbodies get 95% of their required material from these areas. In fact, you have to look at the entire watershed as a whole to determine the true source of contaminants or parameters of concern. It would be great if we could go back to the pristine, early 1800's water parameters. Is this attainable - not even close. Environmentalists understand this, "tree huggers" don't. The million dollar questions are: How close to this point can we reasonably expect to get? What is an environmentally functional point? Can we afford it? If anyone can answer these questions they will be better than all the scientists that have been studying Ontario and Erie. I know this is long winded, but I'll make no apologies because there are no quick answers. Well, let's try one. I'd rather see nutrients increase because there is more environmentally diverse vegetation lining our creeks than have more man-made phophorous input by wastewater treatment plants. This would benfit the entire environment, not just the aquatic one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROB MCINTOSH Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 Wow ErieGuy: Finally some one on here that understands what I have been trying to explain for years, you lost me with all the numbers but I got the just of what your saying, I may have been useing the wrong termanolagy but I think we may be on the right dock you know it's tobad that the MOE,MNR & GOUV, would stop wasting our $$$$$$ and just listen to us the fishermen and people that seam to have a bit of a grasp on this isue and tackle the things that WILL make a differance now and for the future of our lakes instead of trying to change things that only $$$$ from treebuggers will be spent on like trying to stop hunting & fishing that brings MILLONS OF $$$$$ to all likes in this industry. Allright now if I keep going on this everyone will think I'm venting again Catfish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest erie_guy Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 We're definitely launching the same boat, just taking a different approach. Sorry if I used too much technical jargon on you. Don't want to come across that a couple of year's of college has made me uppity. Quite the opposite. I aint got no problem talkin to no one. It's tough to identify your audience over the internet. The reason the treehugger's get the $$$$ is because they are organized and lobby government. Fishermen and hunters tend to fight amongst themselves like farmers do. As well, politicians stopped serving our country many years ago, and can only see as far as the next election. Post a "secret spot" and watch the fighting begin. Instead of adding a caveat like "by going to this spot you must assume the responsibility of keeping the area clean...," people start screaming bloody murder. I know for a fact there are people on this board that have greater knowledge than I do regarding these issues. The thing I don't understand (and never will) is why they don't wade in on these posts. Canadianism I guess. As far a venting/ranting, discussing issues like this and expressing dissatisfaction with government, or others are seen as ranting. Bitching at another angler for sharing a spot is ok though. Go figure. I've had posts like this one yanked from the Simcoe board, while guys fight amongst themselves with more than 15 replies to a post. Again, go figure. (Aw geez, long winded again!) Have a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mean_drunk Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 ........ with more than 15 replies to a post. Again, go figure. (Aw geez, long winded again!)Have a good one. 11327[/snapback] ...for such an ugly fish these sturgeon posts tend to be popular.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.