Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RalphH]

Cahill reputedly met a couple of biologists who gave him this info and said they were doing this work last year on the Dean. He didn't get their names. There was no paper published. Provincial records indicate that no work like this has been done on the Dean since 2011. Does it get anymore unreliable? BTW Cahill is said (by people who know him) to fish for steelhead occasionally.

The advice itself (keep the fish in water that's deep enough to support the body. don't drag it on shore) is pedestrian; common knowledge

BTW he also advises washing cola down the gills of fish that are bleeding profusely. Supposedly it cauterizes the wound or coagulates the blood. Gags about coke to fix this or that or clean the rust off your old Mustang (or adding aspirins gives an acid like high) go back over 40 years. It's all bunkum.

[HOOK]

I saw a couple other guys on the Washington fly forum discussing pouring Coke a Cola down a bleeders gills and how effectively it works. I have not tried it but these few guys said they have done it and it worked. I will need to catch a fish, cause it to bleed a bit and test this out to see if infact it works. Only on a fish I plan to kill anyways of course


If it works, bonus ! if not then I'm already marinating my catch 

[liketofish]

I've swum a lot of the rivers I fished for summer-runs and I was only one of a few people fishing. I never saw a dead steelhead during that time. I've swum the Stamp during the summer and the only dead fish I saw were salmon. I drift the Cowichan all the time and I can look right into ever nook and cranny. I see lots of live fish but no dead ones... except down near the native reserve. Dead fish show up quite well because they lay belly up and their white belly shows up against a dark background.

It is hard to fool an old timer with a lot of practical experience. We've listened to too many unsupported theories to accept what some newbie with an idea is trying to convince us with.

Agree. There is no evidence at all of many dead steelheads. Over the years, only saw one. According to the report, we should be seeing lots in popular river like the vedder. Just not happening. You just can't beat the evidence in the field with a so called study which is not documented nor reported. I have learned not to trust these so called scientific reports in whatever field of study unless it is independently validated by other unbiased studies. That is called the scientific method to prove or disprove claims made by anyone.

[Ian Forbes]

I saw a couple other guys on the Washington fly forum discussing pouring Coke a Cola down a bleeders gills and how effectively it works. I have not tried it but these few guys said they have done it and it worked. I will need to catch a fish, cause it to bleed a bit and test this out to see if infact it works. Only on a fish I plan to kill anyways of course


If it works, bonus ! if not then I'm already marinating my catch 

I used to pour rum down their throat prior to releasing them until this damn steelhead kept swimming back to me for more.

[liketofish]

I used to pour rum down their throat prior to releasing them until this damn steelhead kept swimming back to me for more.

That is the most hilarious post of the year. Thanks Ian. Shall we try a more healthy drink like a fruit juice? LOL

[RalphH]

I used to pour rum down their throat prior to releasing them until this damn steelhead kept swimming back to me for more.

these days the steelhead have become so sophisticated that only happens with Ron Zacapa.

[RalphH]

I saw a couple other guys on the Washington fly forum discussing pouring Coke a Cola down a bleeders gills and how effectively it works.

Try doing a snopes search on coca cola.

here's an example:

http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/acid.asp

[Ian Forbes]

these days the steelhead have become so sophisticated that only happens with Ron Zacapa.

Here in Thailand I can get away with this on the local fish...



I have them swimming around my feet looking for more.

[HOOK]

Wow look at that big one !


Ian your still killing me with your humour LoL 

[TNAngler]

Ok, let me get this straight.  "Scientists" perform study where for some reason they kill a good portion of the fish they have tested.  So a local fish that is having a hard enough time, something in their techniques (whether that be dragging them too close to shore, not securing them enough to put the tag in, something) is causing them to hit their head too hard.  But, to not get in trouble for killing a bunch of fish, they release a conclusion that you can't bring the fish that close to shore or let them hit their head that much?

Am I missing something other than these guys got away with killing a bunch of fish and yet have everyone on here talking about the conclusion instead of trying to improve future studies treatment of the fish?

[typhoon]

Ok, let me get this straight.  "Scientists" perform study where for some reason they kill a good portion of the fish they have tested.  So a local fish that is having a hard enough time, something in their techniques (whether that be dragging them too close to shore, not securing them enough to put the tag in, something) is causing them to hit their head too hard.  But, to not get in trouble for killing a bunch of fish, they release a conclusion that you can't bring the fish that close to shore or let them hit their head that much?

Am I missing something other than these guys got away with killing a bunch of fish and yet have everyone on here talking about the conclusion instead of trying to improve future studies treatment of the fish?

There was no study. There were no dead steelhead.
This is another example of sensationalistic reporting (with no basis in fact) in an attempt to attract traffic to a blogger's site.
It doesn't matter if the blogger's original intent was good or not. Once the story was proven to be fiction he should have removed it.

[TNAngler]

There was no study. There were no dead steelhead.
This is another example of sensationalistic reporting (with no basis in fact) in an attempt to attract traffic to a blogger's site.
It doesn't matter if the blogger's original intent was good or not. Once the story was proven to be fiction he should have removed it.

Oh, even better.  So fake scientists fake killed a bunch of fake steelhead to teach us all a lesson.  Yes, the lesson is good but good grief.

[RalphH]

At best the 'story' was hearsay 2 or 3 times removed. Why you should get so worked up over it is beyond me for sure...those who think everything on the net is true or at the result of good intentions must have been born yesterday or maybe just this morning.