craigdritchie

Getting back to the OP''s original question, yeah, browns have been stocked in the Ottawa River for years. When I used to live there many moons ago, a few guys would catch them for a couple of weeks after stocking took place, then that was all you would hear of them till the following year when the hatchery truck returned. I don't know about the Mattawa area specifically .... the only ones I ever saw were near Shirley's Bay. I honestly think most of the stocked browns were soon eaten by muskie, channel cats and large walleye.

I'm still trying to get over the fact someone thought this was good eating.

Problem with the Loafs is that they always start off well, then fold up and die when it really counts. I can't remember how many times they've been in first place in November, then completely out of the running by the end of January. It's such a consistent pattern you can set your calendar by it. Watch ...........

Loafs will finish in the basement as usual. Take it to the bank.

Good gear doesn't break. Cheap crap does.

Been there. Yes it's expensive, and yes it's worth every cent. Wantabigone's comments are right on the mark.

Once those fish turn off, you're pretty much wasting your time till they settle down, and that can take a couple of hours, depending how skittish they are and how badly they were mauled in the first place. The bigger question is, why even bother? Great comments already posted so no need to totally rehash stuff about being able to see the fish and all. You'll catch a LOT more fish if you just forget the popular spots everyone knows (and beat to death) and instead find your own gems that you have all to yourself. Every single creek flowing into the Great Lakes gets some type of steelhead run. Even rivers with very small runs of fish can provide excellent fishing if you have them all to yourself. The US is an option, but understand that fishing pressure in many (most?) spots is worse than it is in Ontario. Ironically, mainly as a result of more Ontario guys fishing there. One last thought - why fish in a creek to begin with? Beach fishing can be excellent, and boat fishing can be better still.

Pretty old-school fishies!

Not sure I see that anywhere, Justin. You, John and I may disagree on specifics related to the Atlantic salmon program, and that's fair ball, but I don't think anyone can question the years of hard work CRAA and its members have performed for everyone's benefit. CRAA is an organization with a very good name, and deservedly so.

Excellent job, gentlemen, and thanks for sharing that stellar moment.

That really is a pretty fishie.

Lowrance announced a number of rebates recently, which run through the winter. There are deals on both units you're considering. Lowrance Announces Weekend Getaway Sales Event

The jury's not out - it's a brown, trust me. Some browns do have a slight fork in the caudal fin, and I've seen some fish a few spots on the tail. Fish are like humans - there are some variations in all individuals. The ID charts are a good general guide, but there is always some amount of variance. I'm not surprised people on an internet forum think it's an Atlantic. Almost any silver fish with spots on it, or that jumps, gets mis-identified as an Atlantic by someone these days. We all want to believe in these fish - some more than others.

I hate to break it to you, but like so many others, your "Atlantic salmon" is a brown trout.

Headed to the airport and I don't have much time to reply to any of this, but I do want to clarify that Jon's chinook figure includes US plants (my Atlantic salmon numbers don't). It's also important to note that not all those fish were ever in the system at one time - they were spread over a 42 year span. Bottom line is, however, that right now, and for the past several years, Ontario has stocked roughly the same number of chinook and Atlantic salmon each year (approx 500,000 fish). The half-million chinook produce a viable sport fishery, while the Atlantics do not. The truth hurts, but there it is. No question Atlantic salmon add value in other ways, as John, Louis, Justin, Aaron and others have outlined. And I need to emphasize that I would be thrilled to see this program succeed. But so far, the results have not materialized and I still feel we need to do more to provide a balanced fishery. We cannot rely on the Atlantic salmon program as the future of fishing in Lake Ontario. Vance is right on the money - there are way too many numbers in this conversation, and there is clearly no shortage of passion. Wouldn't it be great to focus all of this energy together and build a fishery we can all be proud of?

Thanks for your thoughts Aaron, and I appreciate your views. But accusing me of misleading anyone is something I take very seriously, so please allow me to respond. I'll apologize right now for the long post. First off, what exactly have I mislead people about? I wrote that Ontario has been stocking Atlantic salmon for 25 years, and to date have poured several million of them into Lake Ontario. Click on this link and you can see for yourself that the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission fish stocking database shows Ontario stocking Atlantic salmon every single year from 1986 to 2004. You can add it up for yourself and see that over that 18 year span, the Ontario government poured a grand total of 2,546,391 Atlantic salmon in Ontario streams. Divide that total by 18 years and you have an average of 141,466 Atlantic salmon stocked each and every year, for 18 solid years. That’s a lot of fish! Sadly, the database has no record for 2005, but there is no reason to believe the number of fish stocked that year would have been any different. When the program entered its “current” phase in 2006, annual plants increased to 500,000 fish per year. If you read this MNR news announcement from 2008, it proudly notes that between 2006 and 2008 MNR stocked more than one million Atlantic salmon in Ontario streams. That’s 500,000 fish per year, and stocking levels have remained consistent at 500,000 per year ever since. This gives us an additional 2.5 million Atlantics stocked since 2006. Add the 2.5 million stocked between 1986 and 2004, and we have a grand total in excess of 5 million Atlantic salmon stocked into Lake Ontario over the past 25 years. So I clearly didn’t mislead anyone on the numbers of fish stocked, or the amount of time this program has been dragging on. I also wrote that the results of this stocking program have been disappointing, to say the least. Is that how I misled people? From the CRAA's own website: "CRAA monitored for returns, although they were very rare throughout the 1993 to 2007 era." Over a period of 14 years, CRAA volunteers could count the total number of Atlantics they saw on one hand. Also from CRAA's website: "Returns of adult salmon to the Credit River have been growing, with 49 in 2008, 75 in 2009 and possibly over 200 in 2010." Add in a handful of others that wandered up other creeks or were caught by anglers, and you might come up with another 100 or 150 fish in total. A generous estimate might peg the total number at about 500 salmon, in total, over a three-year span. That’s a generous average of 167 fish per year. Stock 500,000 fish per year, and have maybe 167 come back to be caught by anglers or show up at your fishway. I wrote that I felt this was a lousy return on investment, and I don’t feel I misled anyone there either. Now let’s look at what you had to say. You wrote that Justin Elia caught a bunch of Atlantics in the Credit this year. By catching six fish in one morning, Justin has had more success than a professional charter boat operator I know who, for the past several years, has been on the lake four or five days a week for most of the summer. Quite an accomplishment, to be sure, but it would certainly be misleading to suggest this happens on any kind of regular basis. By the way, was Justin fishing in the fish sanctuary with the special permit that a number of the CRAA members have? If so, then I’m a lot less impressed. Because let’s face it, the average guy just doesn’t have that opportunity. I also find your comment “It took many years for steelhead, browns and chinook to naturalize into Lake Ontario…” to be a bit misleading, for it is simply incorrect. Check MNR’s stocking records and you’ll see that coho were stocked into the Credit River in 1968. Read any fishing magazine from that period and you’ll also see that the first significant coho runs into the Credit occurred in the fall of 1969. That isn’t a very long time at all, certainly not "many years." MNR’s records further show that chinook were introduced to Bronte Creek in 1974. By 1978 Darryl Choronzy was writing in Ontario Out Of Doors magazine about the fantastic chinook fishing off Bronte. That isn’t “many years” either. By the way Aaron, we’re not talking about establishing wild populations - just surviving long enough to contribute to a fishery or at the very least, make it back to a fishway. And how many years have we been waiting for the Atlantics? Oh yes, since 1986. Hmmm. There are a lot of misleading statements about the Atlantic salmon program, and coming from all sides. Some may come from people who are critical of the program, to be sure. Others might come from biologists who are simply trying to protect their jobs. And others still could come from angling groups that benefit by using the salmon program as a way to generate revenue. And sure, there are probably one or two guys who only support it because it lets them go fish in the sanctuary every now and then. But the numbers don't lie. More than five million fish stocked. A return rate measured in the thousandths of a percent. No room in the hatchery for coho, rainbows and browns that will contribute to the fishery, because all the space is occupied by Atlantic salmon that for all intents and purposes only exist on paper. My eyes have been open a long time, which is all the more reason I remain convinced this program is a complete and total sham. I have a lot of respect for your opinion Aaron, but this is one topic upon which we will have to agree to disagree. Edit - fixed a typo. It's 2:00 in the morning and I'm tired!

Thing is John, five years is in itself too long without some signs of success. It doesn't take five years to produce significant results with any others species of salmonid - even lake trout, which grow far more slowly than Atlantic salmon. Said it before and I will repeat it here - stock 500,000 coho or rainbows, and you'll see amazing results in 18 months - not five years. Why are we still waiting? Why do I feel like Linus waiting for the Great Pumpkin to show up? The numbers stocked are well into the millions ..... and nothing! On the basis of the sheer numbers stocked, we should all be catching dozens of small Atlantics each year, and that just isn't happening. I know a charter operator in Port Credit who has boated six of them in his entire life. Six! How does he make a living on that? Believe me - I would love to see Atlantic salmon succeed. But it has been 25 years of excuses. We have stocked millions of fish. And, they're sending out press releases celebrating the fact they saw three fish in the Credit River. If that doesn't constitute complete and total failure, then what does?

I don't mean any disrespect to John or Highdrifter, but I've been hearing the same excuses for 25 years. "But now we're stocking XXXX strain. It's too early to tell, but it looks encouraging." We stock coho salmon and in 18 months, you know. Those little stockers return as 10 - 15 pound adults. We stock rainbows or browns and in 18 months, you know. You have 6 to 10 pound fish all over the place. We stock chinooks and in 18 months, you know. You have lots of 8 - 10 pound fish .... and a year later you have 20 to 25 pound adults stacked in the rivers like cordwood. How many years do I have to keep hearing that with the Atlantics, it's still too early to tell? MNR has been saying this since 1986.

a 14-inch Atlantic has almost certainly spent a year in the lake. They're pretty small when stocked.

We owe our vets - all of them - a debt that can never be repaid. Saying "thank you" doesn't seem anywhere near enough, but it's the very least we can do.

I need to correct an error I noticed in my previous post. In the sixth paragraph I wrote that we have stocked 500,000 Atlantics per year for the past 25 years. That's not right. For the first 18 years of the Atlantic salmon program, we stocked an average of 141,466 fish per year, not half a million. It's been 500,000 per year since though, and no matter how you slice it, 141,000 fish is still a LOT considering how few were ever caught.

Dr. Sal, I wouldn't get too excited just yet. Per the September OFAH memo that Jon referenced, this August three Atlantic salmon were observed in the Credit River. Three. From a stocking of more than 500,000 fish each year. The Credit River Anglers Association reports it recovered 49 Atlantic salmon at its Streetsville fishway in 2008, 75 fish in 2009 and perhaps a total of 200 fish in 2010. Those are returns from annual plants in the neighborhood of 500,000 fish. Over the past three years Ontario has stocked 1.5 million Atlantic salmon in Lake Ontario and to date, we've seen fewer than 400 return. The fact is, we have stocked more than 5.5 million Atlantic salmon into Lake Ontario since 1986. Returns each year amount to a couple of dozen fish. Do you really call that a success story? I don't. It is especially disappointing when one considers what kind of fishery we would have on our hands if we stocked anywhere near the same number of steelhead, or coho. The great coho fishery off the Credit River in the 70s and 80s came from fewer fish than that, and it spawned a huge charter and tackle industry. Why don't we see similar results from all these Atlantic salmon plants? People who defend the Atlantic salmon program say the lousy results are because the fish are stocked as tiny little fry. Well guess what - chinook are also stocked as tiny little fry, and look how they survive. We stock 500,000 Atlantics a year and yet most anglers have never even seen one. We stock the same number of chinook, and they're everywhere. Continued success indeed. I'm not trying to be nasty about it, or stir the pot here, but come on man. As taxpayers and anglers who buy licenses each year, we deserve better.

I earn a living as the Director of Editorial for a large publishing company, where I oversee several different magazines. I sold my first magazine article in 1978 and since then, my work has since appeared in magazines, books and newspapers published on three different continents. I now supervise a staff or editors who fine-tune the work of award-winning writers. By this point in time, I like to think I have a reasonable command of the English language. And still, my own posts on this board (and on my blog) still contain occasional typos. Hey man, it happens. I'm not getting paid for any of this, so I won't lose any sleep over a minor error here and there - by me, or anyone else. But that's a big difference from those "R any of U guyz goin to Brontey 2nite to snag nooks?" posts, where the person writing it isn't even trying to be clear. I find those insulting. The writer was too lazy to make the effort to communicate clearly, and apparently expects me to make the effort to figure it all out. Forget that. Typos happen, and who cares if someone makes a minor grammatical error? When you at least make the effort, it shows a level of respect toward the people who read it. To me, at least, that counts far more than perfect spelling or grammar.

Nope. But it's too much work making a hole big enough to fit the boat in.

My GPS does a wonderful job in the wintertime ...... by showing me the way south to where I can fish in open water.