Well, everyone wanted some views

[Jim Kinner]

We have been encouraged to write our views about season length proposals, and as one of the club’s conservation directors, I should preach about the merit’s of the shortest possible season, the 54 inch size limit, sanctuary areas, an artificial only proposition and habitat improvement projects.

 

But I won’t. I’m just not feeling it.

 

There are a few basic concepts that have me feeling more than A bit conflicted.

 

• This is a Musky fishing club, and catching one never does the fish any favors, no matter when it happens.
• Our members want to fish, and I am hesitant to try and limit that opportunity.
• We have little idea what caused the fishery collapse of the late 1990’s
• As Kevin Kapuscinski pointed out after completing his study, our club’s actions have failed to protect the fishery. This includes pushing for greater size limits, and the Strawberry Island stabilization project.
• Enacting more regulations only restrict those who understand and abide by them anyway.
• The river’s water quality, and weed growth are almost completely unmanageable
• The Buffalo harbor is a political nightmare.

 

So, before we begin our next well intentioned, but probably pointless crusade to save the Niagara River Muskellunge  from those terrible people in our bathroom  mirrors,  Lets stop and consider if anything we do would really make much of a difference?

 

I pushed for a motion to vote on something to restore some unity.

 

We sure are all fired up to do something. I worked for an old foreman who used to shout “ DO SOMETHING EVEN IF IT’S WRONG!” The results usually were.

 

The problem is recruitment, or lack of spawning success. The only thing on our hot little agenda that comes close to addressing a root cause is the sanctuary. And at that, it’s not spot on.

 

I have a much different view of this river, actually immersing in it. Mike sort of touched on this lack of vegetation thing in his presentation. Please bear with me as I float a theory. It is just that, although I hope some of it will be supported to a degree after a current river sediment study is completed.

 

Back when Tom Page was a fair haired Lad, the bottom of the Niagara was clay and rock. The current kept these areas clear. Shallow, slack water areas featured a silt , or sand bottom. Large weed beds, enough to choke your outboard motor covered these flats. In the early 1990’s Zebra Mussels, were introduced. They covered all hard objects, Millions of them. They filter alga, clearing the water. When their life cycle is complete, the shells detach from their hard surface and litter the bottom. The razor sharp little shells are swept everywhere by the current, millions upon millions of them. They are so predominate that they become the primary substrate in some former silt and sand areas. Plants that grew in these areas now not only have to deal with a different material to grow in, their Root systems were likely cut by the sharp shells when swells or current moved the plants or upset the bottom. The few young fish netted now seem to be found directly off the mouths of small creeks, where more fresh silt tends to be deposited, allowing a healthier shallow weed bed.  They were also found off the Love canal restoration area. I would assume some of the work done there introduced traditional sand and silt. It is interesting to note that there are healthier weed beds in some deeper areas that are quick enough to not be major collecting areas, but slow enough to allow weed growth.

 

Like I said, this is just my unsupported theory, and maybe worthless. If the season were to start later, or last longer or anything that I listed as all the stuff I should be supporting at the top, I am not sure that any of it would enhance this fishery, or hurt it all that much.  None of it really has much to do with what I feel is the core problem. And I don’t have any idea how to remedy things if my wild speculation is even close to right.

 

Well, that’s the viewpoint from planet Neptune. You weren’t expecting the status Quo were you?   Jim Kinner

[Tony Scime]

I thought Planet Neptune sounded like a fun place to visit. But I found it to be dark, foreboding, and hopeless. I'm not sure I like it here at all.

There have been many times that I've wondered: what's the point? What's the point of doing anything? What's the point of protecting spawning seasons or size limits or even trying to improve the habitat. Does it really make a difference? Are we total, abject failures? Are we really accomplishing anything?

Well, surely some of what we do must help, I hope. Let's take a look at the darkness emanating from the foreboding soul of Planet Neptune:

PN: This is a Musky fishing club, and catching one never does the fish any favors, no matter when it happens.

Yeah. Does that mean we should have no limits on the amount of effort or the seasons that we fish? Should we have an open season all season long? A non-stop assault? Catching one does the fish no favors, but should we try to release it so it might live? Isn't there a balanced approach, one where we allow angler effort without excessively damaging the fishery? Isn't that worth the effort in lieu of saying what the hell, why bother trying to find the proper balance between exploitation and conservation?

PN: Our members want to fish, and I am hesitant to try and limit that opportunity.

See preceding response.

PN: We have little idea what caused the fishery collapse of the late 1990’s.

I think if we do our homework we could see that it all started with the zebra mussel, loss of biomass, loss of forage, loss of habitat. Clear, clear water equals no life. No sustenance. No hope. A lot of other negatives have added to the stress. So it became a series of unfortunate events which harmed our fishery. Maybe events we had no control over, and were unable to prevent. No easy cures. No panaceas. So we should give up?

PN:  As Kevin Kapuscinski pointed out after completing his study, our club’s actions have failed to protect the fishery. This includes pushing for greater size limits, and the Strawberry Island stabilization project.

Nothing could have protected this fishery from the incessant assault of its natural ecosystem. We could only try to mitigate the damage as best we can. Even Kevin noted that but for our efforts, it might have been worse. Total catch and release - you don't think that accounts for anything? That didn't help the fishery through the endless trials humans have otherwise inflicted upon it? And size limits didn't help? Should we put the limits back to 30 inches? And allow 10 fish limits like we had in the 1960s? What kind  of atmosphere do you have on Planet Neptune?

PN: Enacting more regulations only restrict those who understand and abide by them anyway.

Ummm. And that's a bad thing? Should we open up the season in May because there are some miscreants targeting muskies out-of-season?

Well, you get my point. It ain't easy. Sometimes seems hopeless. But the river seems to be stable, maybe even improving? Maybe we had a little to do with that? Maybe not? Is it worth trying when you really don't know?

If all we were was a fishing club, I wouldn't bother.