Discussion in 'Freshwater Fishing Forum' started by Cuba Libre, Nov 22, 2018.
Just checked my bowl. Last nights precipitation pH was 6.
Here is another couple un logged valleys at the end of Great Central Lake. You would think those streams would be stable with all the pristine forests and all?
The creek running into McBride lake looks just like Honeymoon creek habitat!
Hard to pin the crappy habitat in the upper Tahsis river on logging. Lots of trees here to hold back the water.
Seems like there just happens to be areas in nature where streams have to push thru large unstable deposits of loose land. As unfortunate it is bad for fish productivity it surely isn't all caused from logging.
Ken you’ve arguably fished more systems than anyone on the site but I’m not sure how you can say logging doesn’t affect stream flows/health.
Logged watersheds don’t hold moisture the same as logged watersheds. There is no buffer and it’s too much runoff or too little. There’s science up the ying yang to back it up. Real world experience is no different, I head for the unlogged systems that don’t blown out or brown up as easily. Landslides, avalanche chutes, unstables beds and countless other factors etc might give some anomalies that support your argument but it doesn’t change the science behind a logged watershed.
Kwois has an extremely steep upper watershed and is in one of the wettest regions on the coast. Sure it floods during large events and did that long before logging but that doesn’t disprove that logging affects water levels.
Of course logging temporarily changes the flows rates a bit and cause a greater leaching effect from soils but it isn't what has caused the Gold to go so dead. Megin river is just as dead with no logging. The Golds habitat is still excellent. Logging has just been a go to industry for people to blame for depressed fish populations. Everyone blames logging but when streams like Thompson die off and it has no logging damage then it is nets or seals or the blob. For some reason everyone just cant believe that the changing chemistry of the water source for all the streams doesn't effect fish??
Did you look at the videos? No food no fish. The Heber has flashier flows and less stable stream bed but has more food and fish. How can anyone say logging has been the factor when the better habitat has less productivity??
Ken....sorry you comparing the Thompson steelhead decline to this ,is where I draw the line.
Saying that the run isn’t on its deathbed because of downriver netting is embarrassing and discrediting.
Wow .. I didn't say that logging was the only factor.. Or that it completely destroys every watershed. So please stop making up quotes. But I enjoyed the Google earth flyover.
My point was that is more things impacting fish health, productivity and sustainability than just rain ph from 20 years ago.
In those cowichan watersheds they are susceptible to low / no flows for a number of reasons, not just logging. Reduced high elevation snowpack is one of the big ones (climate change related). Robertson had totally dry sections in May last year.
I agree that the habitat on the Gold is ok overall, and should be producing decent numbers of steelhead. ph of 3.4 in the 1990s would have caused reduced an old inpit in the 90s or earlt 2000s! Yet this is when we had some of the best returns.
You guys must be right. Rain chemistry means nothing and it is all the other factors that cause depressed runs. All the steelhead are doomed. The world has changed and it is all caused from man and global warming and Fn netting!!!
We will see.
Just had this forwarded to me. A little fitting. Brand new study on angling effects on summer run steelhead.. one (of the many) stressor that stocks are currently under .
So agent what does this have to do with the Gold river winter run and lack of ecology in the Gold river?
I could go back into the past threads and pull out the data from environment Canada I already posted which totally contradicts those cartoons you posted but then I would be playing into your game of "fresh water is fine look at the graphs".
I sure wish I could get what I give. I give real world video documentation of collapsed food webs. I stand by my reports with my name. All I get back is continuous graphs and studies from anonymous people. Is video documentation less credible than a graph? What about the real world behind the graphs, studies and computer screen? This is what I'm talking about. Do you or anyone care about the fish or the real situation??
So let's just take a moment to put all our differences to the side. Lets, for a moment, put all the graphs and past studies on the back bench. Let's forget about my big boat with its three world ruining engines or that I have forgotten about more steelhead most people see in a lifetime. Let's just clear our minds of all the distractions and look at the field facts documented on video. Is there anyone out there who can explain why China and Cous creeks have far more invertebrate biomass and diversity, [prey availability], then the Gold, Thompson, Campbell and Muchalat rivers? Cous and China have all the same logging damage, less stable stream bed, never any salmon nutrient input and structurally inferior condition. The larger streams in SH crisis have no silt, have beautiful cobble and have had many years of salmon enriched waters. How is that possible??? On paper it isn't possible but in the real world it is apparent. If it isn't pH then it sure the hell is something else in the water!!!
So is there someone credible out there who can help me find what has been killing the ecology in our waters? I am looking for someone who won't just bombard me with graphs and old studies lead me to believe the real world is wrong and the graph is right. Is there anyone who doesn't already have a bias against industry or can accept that sometimes nature isn't consistently productive. Is there anyone who will cares enough about fish to step out side into the real world to see what has been happening? Hello, if you are out there, please be someone who will sign off on their work rather than anonymously posting emotional discontent for my efforts and credibility.
Was down on the Gold yesterday, stopped at Bigbend pool for a minute and flipped over three rocks. first had 2 cased caddis, and a couple mayfly like larva, the second had a dandy stonefly and another couple mayfly, and the third had a cased caddis, another stonefly and one more mayfly. I was also chatting with a local down at the mouth while waiting at the plane dock (and watching 2 seals roam the estuary) and he mentioned the province had done a snorkel count this year and they only counted 5! Yikes!
Photos below - sorry i cant pickout the small mayfly like ones on the photos but I can assure you they were on all the rocks
Good find!! I like there is still green algae present. It seems like there was a small successful spawn of some inverts species last summer that are surviving. The abundance and diversity is still very low as compared to China or Couse creek. I know a retired MOE guy that did snorkel counts in the eighties. Few years back when I asked him about caddis in the Gold. He said back then there would be a half dozen on every baseball sized rock. I am excited to see if it multiplies for next season this time! Did you look in the fast water?
Well J-ROC I'm not sure if you are trying to sell the idea that there is lots of invertebrates in Gold river or not. If you are the pictures are not a very convincing sale. For one thing it is hard to even see that you are on Gold river from the pictures. Another thing is to say they are on every rock but I only see them on the rock in the middle of the picture and none on the surrounding rocks. If they were on every rock like you assure then how come there is only two stoneflies, two gravel cased caddis and one maybe stick in your three photos? Could you not find anymore? Either way thank you for putting the effort to look. It is way more than Whitebuck even though he promised he was going to.
Next time you are at a stream, if you could, take video. In my videos I am trying to show a Panorama view of the stream for proof of location. Then I try to involve three varies pieces of stream flow if possible, slack, medium and fast flow. Different insects prefer varied flows. Then I video the rocks being turned over so anybody can see that the situation is not "staged" of "cherry picked". On my trip to Gold river between me and Harlan we overturned more than 100 stones and only found 6 or so gravel caddis in one location just above Muchalat river. It was well after dark so I did not photo them. Harlan snorkeled 150 yards from Muchalat down into the Gold and he said he found two stoneflies. Night time with high powered lights is the best way to get a real good look for life because it all comes out from under the rocks and their eyes glow nicely. Just not a good tome for video.
Here is another video of China from just the other day. This time the stream is a bit lower and I have waders so could get a better look. Not sure if I would say there are bugs on every rock but... Let me know how it compared to the density of invertebrates you seen in the Gold river??
First of all I am not trying to sell anything,
Second of all, your insinuating that have staged this pisses me off to say the least. You encourage people to do this, then you second guess their findings, and accuse them of trying to mislead everyone else because they didn't align with our findings. You are a real piece of work.
I was in runners, I literally flipped over three rocks - the ones I took photos of. Anyone else can go to the same spot and flip over rocks for themselves if they feel I am misleading them.... I don't need to go making unnecessary further disturbances.
Base on your emotional response I can clearly see that I hit the nail on the head again! Thanks for the conformation. lol
Separate names with a comma.