Jonny

Nope. That's why the title "Confusion". Seems that some people are, according to the article. Don't be surprised if it's applied to more in the future.

Registering unmotorized watercraft at $50 a pop --- what will they think of next... http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/944588--boaters-fear-they-ll-be-up-a-creek-without-a-50-licence?bn=1

Thanks, fishnsled... There's a LOT of good information here. I'd recommend that anybody who hasn't read it do so now. Seems to me if they're doing that much testing of Chinese and Vietnamese fish products, you'd want to make sure to stay away from them. There's also a section there about how the Chinese destroyed the Cdn garlic industry. GRRRRR!

How is Erie fish for contaminants nowadays? I thought you still had to be careful how much you consume. Veggies... you sure have a point there. Lots of produce in supermarkets comes from China now. Snow peas, garlic, a number of types of fruit, etc. Sometimes there's no alternative - i.e. it's very hard to find Can/Am garlic. (I know Leechman will say "Grow yer own!")

Pretty good! So a catch doesn't have to be landed in China and/or processed in China to be "Product of China" ? Chinese boats can sell their catches straight from the boat to Can/Am processors? I did not know that.

Some of the big supermarkets have fresh fish counters too. I wonder, if you asked would they be able to tell you where the fish came from? I would assume that fish which is sold as fresh would be Canadian/American fish, but assuming things is often enough a dumb thing to do!

You could very well be right, although it makes no sense to me either. I mean when you get "Wild Pacific Salmon" and it's marked "Product of China" (I see that all the time), you wonder where it was caught. Is there a big salmon fishery in the Far East/Siberian coast/ etc? Not that I know of.

You're right about that. I don't buy Made in China candies or confections for my grand-kids either. Partly because of quality concerns, partly because I'd rather support Canadian and American businesses. Right you are. It's a good idea to read the safe consumption booklet from the Ontario gov't. But minimal concern if you're careful, I think. The red usually doesn't bother me. I like my pike to have more taste than pickerel; sometimes I find pickerel a little bland. (Sacrilege I know!)

It's getting so we should prize our own sport-fishing catch more and more as far as eating quality is concerned. Have you checked out the supermarket selection for frozen fish lately? Read the fine print on the back of the packages and you will find, disturbingly often, "Product of China". It's not only on fish we associate with the Far East like basa or tilapia, but on cod, haddock, salmon, sole, lots of the species we buy and associate with Canadian or American catch. There are some "mystery fish" thrown into the mix like Product of China blue cod. What the heck is "blue cod". There are "Highliner" processed fish products, supposedly Canadian, that also read "Product of China" when you check the fine print on the back. I suppose these products have to pass inspection before being sold in Canada, but you can well imagine (I can!) the conditions under which these Far Eastern fish are raised, or caught, or cleaned or stored. Canadian catch and Canadian facilities could be bad enough; imagine what it's like over there. When you catch and clean your own fish, from your own waters, you know the quality (top quality) you're getting. Enjoy it! (And, I would say, look for Canadian or American origin when you have to buy fish in a supermarket!)

THE NUGGET Sept 17, 2009 I make that 46,000 kg of walleye, not the 40,000 kg stated by Kaufman, the MNR biologist, in March of the same year. That's a significant difference. But that's not all... How that got figured I have no idea.

Scott Kaufman is a large lakes biologist with the Ministry of Natural Resources in North Bay. In March 2009 he was interviewed for a North Bay Nugget article. Now looking back at the previous info I posted: That catch equates to a FAR lower take per year from 1885-1907 of ALL species by ALL methods, and yet in about 20 years the entire fishery on the lake had to be closed down. What does that suggest about where we're headed now? To me it suggests that the Lake Nipissing fishery is headed to Hell in a handbasket.

You could be right. But on the other hand, now that Grant is the image of Mantracker, with his straight-shootin', lawman/goodguy character, he could be a hard act to follow for the format. And the ladies love him. There goes that demographic.

I've watched quite a few episodes of Mantracker and enjoyed them. I think the show is dead without Terry Grant. He brought the concept alive; without him the concept is worthless, now that people have learned to associate him with the show. Too bad it wasn't a longer run.

Just some general information which I found interesting... ...excerpted from "North Bay's Startpoint - 1882" by C. Gunning (1998)

You're talking here about things that are already being done on Nipissing. I don't see why we should be talking about slot sizes and C&R when : a ) The mandated slot sizes and reduced limits are already being followed by the overwhelming majority of anglers. b ) Catch and release is already heavily practiced by anglers because of the slot size for walleye, and because many anglers throw back everything for which they don't have a preference, and also a lot of what they catch that's too small, or too large (spawners). I think you may have too dark a view of the average angler. The average angler has changed in the last 20-30 years, I do believe. I can't quite follow what you think the alternative is. I for one am quite willing to point fingers, but I don't think the sport angling group to which I belong can't have justifiable fingers pointed at it too.

That may be why the native lobby, for its part, feels comfortable with making a statement like this: There are a number of factors at work. None of them should be out of bounds for discussion, and I don't think anyone would imply that the group they fall into is blameless just because they're commenting on the practices of another of the groups.

I think this thread should be locked. There's been way too much discussion of walleye and I'm getting tired of it.

Your opinion. Everybody's entitled to one. EDIT - Just for fun --- 158 Replies 3,876 Views I'm gonna have my friend Elsa (The Leather Lady) email a list of the members here; seems that a lot of you are into pain.

I had a different thought. or "Nipissing Cormorants Healthy, MNR Tightens Fishing Regs Again"

Pray tell, how did you come to that conclusion?

I suppose the full impact doesn't hit someone who hasn't seen what I've seen. Looking out at the lake, where once I would see the odd gull or small flock of gulls, I can now see thousands of cormorants in a feeding frenzy. They fly in and land in cloud after cloud, covering the surface of the water, constantly diving and bobbing up. The huge flock moves down the bay, with the ones at the front diving, and the ones at the rear flying up and leapfrogging to the front before diving again. The scene is one of frenetic activity as they work their way a couple of miles down the bay, never ceasing their progress for a moment. They are diving in 15 to 20 feet of water. They can dive to 30+ feet and when they are churning up the bay in their thousands I guess they're catching the odd fish. But it's OK. I don't have a scientific study to tell me that they're impacting the fish population, and the MNR doesn't seem to be in a hurry to provide one, so I think if I just sort of chill, everything will work out in the end.

OK, I don't really have an argument with that. But here on Nipissing, I think that we could make an immediate dent in the cormorant population. With a concerted effort starting this spring in the nesting areas, co-ordinated by the MNR and staffed by numerous volunteers, I'd bet we could halve the cormorant population on this lake by 2013 at the most, and drastically more after that. Of course it won't happen. It seems too many people think we shouldn't or can't do anything, and the MNR certainly isn't antsy to move.

Urban encroachment and all that human "invasive" stuff is beside the point. We're not going to stop expanding because we feel guilty about it. We might, however, change HOW we expand. We do a good job of managing viable populations of fish and wildlife, and we almost always manage with more fish and wildlife in mind. That should not mean, however that when there is an imbalance caused by OVER-population of a species, that we should feel guilty about controlling it. A cormorant isn't sacrosanct just because it's a wild bird. Even deer aren't sacrosanct when they eat up Carolinian forest, or damage too many crops, or start colliding with vehicles too often. Managing means trying to strike a balance; it doesn't mean trying to manage for maximum populations of everything. I would argue that cormorants are not a necessary part of the equation on freshwater lakes.

Not because of sea gulls you haven't. Why do people notice where cormorants nest? Because they've never seen anything like it where seagullls nest. If we were used to seeing skeleton trees because of seagulls, it wouldn't be such a big issue with cormorants.

Look, I've fished dozens of lakes where there are healthy populations of seagulls, and your assertion is not correct. That's as mildly as I can put it. Seagulls nest on barren rock. They don't nest in trees and they hardly even nest on the ground in wooded areas. They like open sky above them when they're nesting, so they pick barren or open areas to begin with. The small islets where you see large numbers of nesting gulls never had much vegetation on them anyway, if any at all. And almost certainly no trees.