A cruel end
Bravo to Robert Mickle for his letter condemning “catch and release” sport fishing [“Catch and release does harm,” October 30]. This has long been my belief and I voice my opinion at every opportunity, whenever anyone will listen (or not).
I am an avid fisherman and I find it very disturbing to watch the fishing shows, where guides or customers hold the fish to have their pictures taken, with the poor fish gasping. These fish are worn out, finally put back in the water, photographed again swimming away and everything looks cool. But this is a farce. These fish are stressed, and if they don’t die immediately, they will soon become seal food.
I raised rainbow trout for several years and decided to test the “catch and release” theory. I allowed my grandchildren to catch fish and we carefully released them into a large tote that had creek water circulating into it. Eight of the 10 fish placed in the tote died.
After the mysterious demise of wild coho in the gulf, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) raised and released hatchery coho. Now, rather suddenly, wild coho have returned to the gulf. The catch limit is that while two hatchery fish are allowed, wild coho must be released. My experience was that I caught at least several wild coho, which I had to release before catching one or two hatchery fish. This is insane. If we are allowed two coho, we should keep the first two coho caught, and if one is a hatchery fish with adipose fin missing, return the head to DFO and we might benefit from the information gained.
At the risk of becoming monotonous, as there are many more problems, I again commend Robert Mickle for making this problem public.
Percy Redford
Finn Bay Road, Lund
Who makes the decision?
How many more times do the citizens of Powell River have to say no to the “development” of the land parcel known as the old arena site, Willingdon beach [“Public input into community plan draws to a close,” October 30]?
The article states: Felip said, “We finally decided, let’s propose council to do it, but we are going to warn them that we perceive there are arguments here, you decide because you have the authority which way you want to go.”
Who is “we?” Is staff now making the most important decisions on issues that will affect the whole community forever? This issue is too important for even City of Powell River mayor and council to decide without the call to the citizens of Powell River.
For weeks, months and yes, years, councils have addressed and readdressed this issue which now has created a deep division within the community.
When one looks at the petition that was signed with heartfelt conviction for the future of the community, by over 5,000 citizens, why do certain groups of varied interests and council continue to ignore the strong voice of the citizens? The time has come when mayor and council have to finally put it to the people in the only logical, responsible and acceptable manner—a referendum.
It is now time for mayor and council to listen to the people who elected them.
The referendum should be straight and simple: “parkland or development?”
We don’t need any cloak and dagger wording that would muddy the issue; we know where the citizens stand. Five thousand-plus have already spoken. Let’s give all citizens an official voice with a binding referendum.
Telephone surveys, letters and online surveys do not count.
Mayor and council are supposed to listen to the people. Let the people speak with a binding referendum.
Wilf Rennecke
Field Street
