Hi Al,
You’ve been working in the fisheries and have contributed a huge amount to the great fishing we have in the wellington area and we all owe you a debt of gratitude for that, but I have to respectfully disagree with you on several points. The whole move to support native species (including Atlantics) over the successful naturalized sport fisheries in the province is not a conspiracy theory and I can point to several facts that support this:
1. Fact: Atlantics and other native species are now being given priority on the credit river, here are some direct excerpts from the 2013 Credit River Fisheries Management Plan:
http://iwffc.ca/credit-river-fisheries- ... mber-2013/ (the part about discontinuing brown trout stocking in the credit river if it competes with redside dace is really concerning)
“It should also be noted that brown trout are known to compete with brook trout and Atlantic salmon and are now considered an invasive species in some areas of North America (http://www.invasive.org). If rainbow trout are allowed access into the middle Credit River, there are concerns that competition between young rainbow trout and brook trout and Atlantic salmon will have negative impacts on these native species.”
Management objectives for Atlantic Salmon 2. prevention of competition with introduced species such as rainbow and brown trout;
Brown trout are known to negatively compete with native brook trout. More recently, this species has been considered as invasive in the province of British Columbia and states of New York and California.
Management Objective: Permit and encourage harvest of brown trout, with no size restrictions, in the middle and upper Credit River where this species overlaps with brook trout and Atlantic salmon range. Continue to pass brown trout above the Streetsville Fishway and restrict further access beyond the Norval Dam all year round. Supplemental stocking of brown trout in the main Credit River below Norval is supported unless range overlap with resident species-at-risk, such as Redside Dace, is discovered. Should this situation arise, supplemental brown trout stocking will be discontinued.2. Fact: Steelhead stocking in the eastern end of lake Ontario was discontinued by the MNR due to the perceived smolting of rainbow down the St. Lawrence establishing naturalized runs of steelhead on the east coast. The reports mention genetic testing done that confirmed 50% of the fish were ganaraska strain which means they could come from any MNR stocked steelhead or natural fish from the ganaraska itself. Other sources of steelhead on the east coast were confirmed from the salmon river and other NY stocked fish. Atlantic salmon can just as easily travel down the st. Lawrence and interfere with existing native populations on the east coast.[/i]
3. Fact: MNR stopped assisting in the steelhead lift on Cobourg creek this year, the MNR allowed the lift to proceed but did not go out of their way to help, guess with the cut backs the money defaults to the Atlantic salmon restoration program.
My point is that it’s pretty easy to see which way the wind is blowing in Ontario with regards to how the fishery will be managed in the future. This is just the start, its seems that some now believe that we have an obligation to restore our environment back to some theoretical state that existed before people were here, regardless of what happens to our recreational fishery. As an avid recreational angler I can’t support this management practice as it has no basis in reality. We spend money on license fees, tax dollars and put thousands back into the economy and that money goes to support these objectives. We should have a say in how that money is spent and what the objectives should be, it should not just be based on what some biologists believe and what some special interest groups think is best for our environment. I believe everything I’ve stated here is true, so how can you say that it is a conspiracy theory when these are taken directly from the MNRs published documentation.
I would like to see and catch Atlantic salmon and I’ve sent emails to the MNR in support of the program, that was until I started to see what the cost of this program is. the damage that the program can and will do to the existing fishery far far exceeds the benefits IMO.
Lets just hope they don't find native / non-native species overlap at the sandbanks. If anyone can directly refute these statements please let me know because I would prefer to think our fisheries have a brighter future!
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
I think it's great that OPG gives back to the fishery, as they should be! But to say that there money can't be re-directed into a more productive species is not accurate. 
