Your thoughts on the resource

[Crazyhook]

I think they have to start really looking at everything they approve. 5.1" for bait fish? not sure I get that reasoning at all. Isn't a big bait harder for a fish to shallow and get injured. I understand the whole invasive species thing...

 

as for the CO's. I think they need a better reporting system

[Tomcat]

Here's the change to catch and retain rules for 2008:

 

A Change to Ontario’s Catch and Retain Rules

 

Generally, daily catch limits include all fish that are retained for any period of time and not immediately released. Anglers fishing from a boat may now catch and retain, and selectively live release, more walleye, northern pike, largemouth or smallmouth bass than the daily limit, provided:

 

(a) the fish are held alive in a livewell with a mechanical aerator operating at all times,

( the fish comply with any applicable size limits,

© the sport or conservation fishing licence daily catch and retain limits for walleye or northern pike are not exceeded at any one time,

(d) no more than six largemouth or smallmouth bass (or any combination) caught under a sport fishing licence are retained at any one time, and

(e) the conservation fishing licence catch and retain limits for largemouth and smallmouth bass (or any combination) are not exceeded at any one time.

 

Anglers are reminded to closely monitor the condition of fish held in a livewell. Only fish that are in such a condition that they will survive may be released (see Tips on Live Release of Fish, page 10). Releasing a fish that will not survive and allowing the flesh of that fish to be wasted is an offence. Any fish not live-released are part of your daily catch and retain limit.

 

While I'm not against positive change, I don't support this change because it provides less protection to our fish resources. I suspect this change was added to appease the tournament fishing fraternity. I guess in the end, it really doesn't matter what rules exist because there's insufficient COs to enforce the rules anyway.

[Bernie]

A couple of comments to make. First of all there are lakes in decline from overfishing. Nipissing is one of them. When I was a kid there were a few fish shacks scattered here and there in the winter. Now you can hardly see the shoreline for the city of huts on it. A lot of them are the hut rental guys trying to make a buck. I don't blame them, but I think that some more of them could maybe contribute more back into the lake in the restocking program. Quite a few contribute nothing back.

 

Secondly is the technology factor. Sonar and GPS makes it easier to locate and catch the fish on a consistent basis. They have nowhere to hide anymore. This is true everywhere. Twenty years ago I could go to 3 or 4 different spots and catch a few. Now I have at least 50 spots marked on a GPS and the fish are definitely not as plentiful.

 

Commercial fishing also takes a toll.

 

I have been on this lake for 50 years and have seen the changes in that time.

There are also environmental issues. Weed beds that had disappeared 40 years ago are beginning to make a rebound. Why they disappeared to begin with I don't know for sure but have some suspicions.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is if things continue the way they are now, it will become a fished out lake.

Edited December 16, 2007 by Bernie

[big guy]

Ya I was thinking about the whole technology issue last night. I wondered to myself, why does the average fisherman, someone going out to catch a couple for the dinner table, or to take his kids fishing need something like a GPS unit. Is it really necessary, will it mean that we aren't the "great white hunter" anymore if we come home empty handed once in a while. That GPS will take us back to the same place we caught the 5 lb. smallie the last time, then we'll try to catch it using the same presentation. Pretty soon all the fish in that area have seen everything you ever thrown at them, they're educated, they won't bite anymore, but we say they're all gone... well maybe they're not.

 

When did it change from "fishing" to "catching". Are we so afraid of failure nowadays that he has to include everything in our lives. Being a good person, father/mother, sister/brother, son/daughter etc, are the things we should be afraid at failing at, coming home without dinner, or having the shiniest, newest car on the block or even the perfect lawn are things we shouldn't be afraid of, it's only aesthetics... who really cares.

 

It's this whole competitive aspect that's bred into to us now from watching all these ridiculous fishing tournament shows on the boob tube, thinking that we're the next champion of the sport the next time we hit our favourite lake. Tournament angling has brought on significant change to the industry, some of it has been positive, but personally, I think most of it has been very harmful, to the environment , but mainly to our mentality.

 

Personally speaking, I think I'll keep my Magna II to show me at what depth I'm over and I'll keep lining up those two trees, or that cottage and that flag pole, to identify my trolling route and try to teach my sons that fishing is about patience and being out there enjoying it more than anything else.

[aplumma]

Since I am mostly a river fisherman I have found that stocking is not near as important as if it were a lake. The migration of the fish and the amount of area to fish is one that seems to remain health as far as numbers and size go. When we have a bad year meaning flooding at spawning or drought we have a hole poked into the years recruitment class. The year before or the year after will fill this spot and few will notice the missing year. Were the issue becomes more apparent is when we lose the ability to support the fish that are already living due to either habituate loss or over fishing. The loss of habituate can be reversed in some cases by restoration of the breeding grounds and the hatchery nursery areas that have been lost. The addition of slot limits and creels limits are a good way to make sure that the area has a viable breeding stock that can help replenish the fish that are removed from the environment either by man or mother nature.

 

Art

[OhioFisherman]

big guy brought up some good points, technology has made it easier to be more consistent. A good thing? Also some mixed emotions on that, for the casual angler 3 or 4 days a month a help, for a guy with a cottage or home on a lake that uses it more often, on a lake with a lot of homes and cottages, with a lot of people insisting it is their right to keep a limit every time out a possible disaster.

 

Real hard to keep accurate catch numbers, they don`t check everyone, every time out. Guesstimates.

 

Competitive fishing? Bass fishing here is about the best it has ever been, a change in thinking, the fish used to wind up on a stringer when I was young. Now most if not all are live released, TV and money have helped, and hurt.

 

Big motors on small lakes, needed? People running up and down a lake at 60-70 miles an hour? Fishing for nesting fish? More closed seasons needed,no fish should be a target during the spawn.

 

Just to me the tournament trail of organizations like bass and flw (follow the spawn) don`t make a lot of sense, just a lot of money.

[big guy]

I just finished watching the end of Simply Fishing on WFN. During the episode he caught a large 50" range muskie and his guest, Ted Takasaki I believe, got it into the net at boatside then proceeded to take at least 3 minutes getting the hooks out of it, then they lifted it out of the water for "all the world" to see.

 

Seeing this got me thinking, if you're going to release the fish anyway, why not use barbless hooks. In this particular case it would have cut down the time the fish spent thrashing around in the net considerably. They fish seemed to swim away vigorously, but who knows whether it was actually alive 24 hours later.

 

If you're out fishing and practising catch and release, doesn't it seems a little hypocritical to be using barbed hooks? If the fish gets off because the barbs have been pinched down, it shouldn't really matter... right?

 

Maybe this is something all catch and release tourneys should be looking at as well. Just a thought.

[Marc Thorpe]

Interesting views from all, which is what I was seeking.

Louis it is someone perception as we all have different views on what affects each and every one of us depending on the regions and overall regions,

 

Interesting C&r is brought up, c&r has been implemented for years now, I somewhat suspect it common practice amongst bass, muskie and other species but possibly walleye and pike might seem to get less attention in the C&r side of things. I suspect they are not as high lighted in C&R species although TG shares some of his trips with us and quinty also

 

Harvest is a thing of Heritage in which remains a tool to protecting the erosion of our fishing right; we should by all means conserve this tool

Lowering harvest rates for walleyes from 6 to 4 is a good thing I suspect, as the windfall will trigger more trips as the lower possession limit should allow for in angling times thus resulting in an increased $$ spending by anglers. Possibly other species should be lowered, this equations would stimulate economic growth overall and allow for conservation of all species

 

Crazyhook brings up a good point of wasted time, the live bait decrease in size

What amount of time was wasted and what are the scientific reason for this?

I’ll share my thoughts on this in another reply,(Conversation we had on another board, which was very good)

 

CO presence, that is major sore thumb for most provinces, its un-fortunate because this area is the battle line and grass roots of natural resource, without species to protect and laws to uphold, there’s no need for fish and game laws. I think some of the admin funds should be directed into more enforcement. Possibly even transfer employees and train em so no job loss would be incurred

 

As far as politicians doing betterment, well as Martin Luther King once said "I had a dream"

That’s not one of em!

 

One thing I think all provinces should press and set into place is a pre bilging station of ballast as the ships enter the St Lawrence. Someone this year fishing with me spoke of a possible method that would kill all living matter in ballast, which would be somewhat safe, and non-polluting

Great efforts should be placed into the front line of halting invasive species

I fear we may have not seen the worst of em yet as new species are introduced every year without any impact, which one will flourish and cause irreversible damages?

 

 

 

I sometimes wonder if there was not a better way our MNR’s could include public involvement prior to issuing these changes. They do have web sites but communication with the public sometimes lacks and could be bettered; also I suspect many regs changes are lobbied which is only the view of a few when considering all anglers whom purchase a license. Possibly angler views could be collected when renewing ones fishing license

[Marc Thorpe]

Big Guy,great reply

[Marc Thorpe]

My perception is the "time" alloted to figuring how and why this certain live bait reg should be diminished and altered could have been used in a more constructive way in battling the illegal use of multiple rods.A good structure and statigic plan of how to enforce , better presence on waters and examplery fines to diminish this plague would have been more constructive and had a more postive impact.

This issue alone deserves more attention and priority by OMNR/Co and all clubs because its esentially ignored and un-enforced and is spreading like a virus

the issue of 2 rods is very simplistic in nature,There is no sport in sportfishing with 2 rods,its catch fishing.It most certainly takes something away from the true nature of why we go fishing.

The true nature and element of sportfishhing is 1 rod ,1 angler and the river or lake of choice.We are twarting away from the true nature of fishing when this type of behavior is allowed to prevail to the levels in which we curently see.

 

When you consider the minority of anglers and the availibity of live bait in excess of 6 inches and factor the number of illegal rod users,its obvious by anyones observation that spends any time out on the water anywhere in the region,2 rod anglers out number live bait anglers using minnows in excess of 6 inches.

 

It is my observation that large lures can potential injure fish as much as live bait,I have fished with live bait although I generaly fish artificials,I've never had a fish mortaly injured from live bait but have from artificials,so I am perplexed at this change and alloting any amount of time in creating such a change Rolling Eyes

 

The intent I suspect is always done with good intent,but sometimes I suspect all angles are not covered and thought out,At times I think too much attention is drawn to the minute issues all the while the larger issues facing us are ignored or not addressed

 

One thing we all must factor in,the more we regulates ourselves the closer we are getting to regulating ourselves out of our rights to fsih,it may be 50 years or more,but every time you tighten the belt,you have less room and Freedom to enjoy the true values that fishing offers

[muskymatt]

All this talk about regulating and "tightening the belt".

 

Tell me. If you don't have regulations , then what do you have?

 

A free for all.

 

People complain about and insult even assault the white bucket brigade for abusing the fishery, then turn around and moan about more or changes to the regs. I find that hypocritical.

 

And these are the same people who critize the special interest groups for actually careing and trying to bring attention to the problems.Go figure.

 

What works today might not work tomorrow as what worked yesterday doesn't work today. It's a constantly revolving cycle. You have to meet the needs of the time.

 

All the armchair biologist who have never taken a course or even read a single report from someone who knows but yet know more because they have fished for 20 -55 yrs..PLEASE.

 

I guess all the people who do the studies are full of it and don't know a single thing.

 

I don't profess to know much about the science of the fishery but I'll tell you if a group that has studied it for years tells me changes are needed now to protect it for tomorrow ...I'll listen.

Edited December 17, 2007 by muskymatt

[OhioFisherman]

As a kid and young man I fished with live bait a lot, sort of a pitching, flipping technique, with a bobber and shiner or chub. Bait size wasn`t as important as sticking the bait in front of the fish, you got it in front of a fish, especially a large one and the bobber never got a chance to settle, it just kept sinking. I had very few fish injured, I was alert, expected a quick response to a minnow dropping in on a good fish.

 

Also seen fish injured by lures, it happens as much as we try to avoid it. Just my feeling it is more important to locate places where big fish frequent than bait size, the small catches all thing, they don`t pass up an easy snack? It was relaxing sitting around in a boat with a 6 or 8 inch minnow swimming around looking for trouble at times, but if it`s not legal I can adapt, sort of what it`s all about anyway. Adapting, the better you are at it, conditions, laws, seasons the more often you will be successful.

 

Good discussion, no perfect answers, just be aware of your fishery, if you want it to stay good, adapt.

[Roy]

I think you're missing the point Matty. And for your information, it's been 55 years.

[muskymatt]

Corrected!

[Roy]

Thanks Matty. Now how about your thoughts on the resource? Or do you just want to condemn someone elses' thoughts on the subject?

[fishinggeek]

I think there are groups with a lot of diverse motivations, and all these make it hard to make the "right" decision.

 

I am leaning towards believing the biologist, and from the few research reports I have read, they seem to be generally in favour of reducing limits, implementing slot sizes, and shortening seasons. But then again, bureaucrats have had hidden agendas in the past, using their expert knowledge to justify their budgets, so this has to be taken into account. Are they not totally unbiased in their findings, and are subconsciously (ie. unknowingly) trying to inflate their budget and power?

 

Animal rights groups may want to slowly reduce fishing over a long time in a manner that is barely noticeable at first, until it gradually becomes almost non-existent. Have their lobbying efforts somehow affected the reg's?

 

And I will probably take a lot of flak for this, but we as fishing folk form another stakeholding group. Some of us lobby either directly or indirectly through member associations. Some of us have motivations that might not be "best". Having the best fishery (eg. heavy stocking, trophies of one species at the detriment of the ecology) does not always mean having the best reg's. For example, I enjoy going carp fishing (but I rarely have the time to do). But if the general consensus amongst scientists was Canada should have no more carp, then I would gladly support their extermination and never catch another carp again. Same could be said for stocked salmon or trout, which I also enjoy catching. I don't believe that a body of water with great fishing with lots of big muskies, walleye, bass, or any other species stands on its own as proof of a healthy ecosystem. My enjoyment from fishing, be it C&R or eating, should always be secondary to the general health of the system.

 

I think the real test is what is best for ecology and the environment. So in my own personal opinion, I tend to favour allowing sports fishing for all, so I believe in keeping license costs low and support initiatives like Family Fishing weekends. But to counterbalance this universal allowance to fish, I also would bet that restricting limits, slot sizes, and certain seasons is the way to go. I agree fishing is not necessary for survival, but also think the occasional meal is part of our heritage. I wouldn't mind in the least if policies such as walleye limit of 2 with a slot, zero possession of musky, or laker limit of 1 with a slot was implemented.

[muskymatt]

After reading many post on new regs and disapointements in regards to our overall resource

What are your thoughts of the futur of our resources in your perception?

What impacts and issue do you consider needs the most attention in coming years?

 

 

I believe that the resource is in need of as much help as possible.

 

The only opinion of the regs I have is they are there for a reason , I accept that and will abide by them.

 

With invasive species , zebra mussels, gobies ,asian carp, cormorants etc...our resource needs help!!

 

Who knows what long term effect these will have but as history shows too many changes too fast can be horrific on nature. And you can bet they aren't the last to come.

 

Regulations do not go far enough in some cases and too far in others but without these regs the fishery would be doomed.

 

At a consuption level we have to not only have regulations but not exercise our full rights all the time, we don't need to have a limit every day.

 

I believe that with not only habitat preservation but habitat restoration our waters and fish will have a fighting chance at sustaining itself.

 

At the rate we're going in years to come you won't even be able to eat any fish and this has already started to happen in a lot of areas. Pollution is growing and new pollutions effect is not even yet known.

 

So to sum it up ....conservation and preservation exercised our resource will survive and grow.

 

Otherwise it's got little hope.

[KyleM]

This has little to do with the regs but.......

 

Before stocking the great lakes we need to settle some native issues on commerical fishing.

 

It downright painful to watch this happen on the great lakes.

 

Water levels are a big question mark for me aswell.

[Chris]

Hi, Matt I would like to respectfully challenge a few of your comments.

 

I believe that the resource is in need of as much help as possible.

 

While I believe that we all need to continue to look out for the best interests of our resources, I think you will actually find that most biologists believe our fisheries are improving and are in great shape. Matt, I know you like muskies, so here is a few quotes from a Nov. 2004 MNR publication which discusses the characteristics of Ontario muskellunge fisheries, written by Steve Kerr.

 

"Angling success, in terms of catch-per-unit-effort, has improved over the past twenty-five years and Ontario waters now provide some of the highest quality muskellunge fisheries in North America."

 

and

 

"Overall, Ontario's muskellunge fisheries appear to be stable and sustainable. This can be attributed to an increase in the catch-and-release ethic as well as new minimun size limit regulations."

 

As well, Dr. Casselman, while giving a speech at the Muskie Symposium in Indianappolis a few years ago, stated that Ontario's muskellunge fisheries have never been better. NEVER BEEN BETTER, Matt!!!! I know there was a video clip of the speech going around on one of the other forums, maybe you should google or youtube it and check for yourself. Steve Kerr's publication is available thru the MNR.

 

I don't profess to know much about the science of the fishery but I'll tell you if a group that has studied it for years tells me changes are needed now to protect it for tomorrow ...I'll listen.

 

Are you referring to biologists or your club??? I think you will find that most biologists would disagree with your position. If you're referring to your club, then this is a real good example of how a club with a special interest CAN have an effect on someone's thinking.

[muskymatt]

Hi, Matt I would like to respectfully challenge a few of your comments.

While I believe that we all need to continue to look out for the best interests of our resources, I think you will actually find that most biologists believe our fisheries are improving and are in great shape. Matt, I know you like muskies, so here is a few quotes from a Nov. 2004 MNR publication which discusses the characteristics of Ontario muskellunge fisheries, written by Steve Kerr.

 

"Angling success, in terms of catch-per-unit-effort, has improved over the past twenty-five years and Ontario waters now provide some of the highest quality muskellunge fisheries in North America."

 

and

 

"Overall, Ontario's muskellunge fisheries appear to be stable and sustainable. This can be attributed to an increase in the catch-and-release ethic as well as new minimun size limit regulations."

 

As well, Dr. Casselman, while giving a speech at the Muskie Symposium in Indianappolis a few years ago, stated that Ontario's muskellunge fisheries have never been better. NEVER BEEN BETTER, Matt!!!! I know there was a video clip of the speech going around on one of the other forums, maybe you should google or youtube it and check for yourself. Steve Kerr's publication is available thru the MNR.

Are you referring to biologists or your club??? I think you will find that most biologists would disagree with your position. If you're referring to your club, then this is a real good example of how a club with a special interest CAN have an effect on someone's thinking.

 

Those quotes are based on conditions in 2004,as you can see my opinions are reflecting the conditions in 2008(or close to it) and you can see that since then VHS, gobies and Zebra mussles and cormorants since then have devastated much of some water systems.

 

I believe that it may appear that muskies are more prevalent but I take into account better angling techniques and higher profile catches, if you combine this with catch and release it may give the impression of a healthier fishery but the log program has in the past couple years shown different.

 

LSC had 50% less fish caught after the first year of VHS, the larry was close as well.

 

 

"Overall, Ontario's muskellunge fisheries appear to be stable and sustainable. This can be attributed to an increase in the catch-and-release ethic as well as new minimun size limit regulations."

 

 

I agree with that 100%

 

But that doens't mean pressure won't affect it and it can be ignored.

 

But as I said....a lot has happened to our waters since 2004.

 

If you look at the state of muskie angling in the states as far as natural stocks it only makes sense that" Ontario" has the best muskie angling in N. America. There aren't many other places to go.

 

 

It would be interesting to see if a biologist would confirm the (never been better) statement today.

 

I'll listen to anyone or group that has experience in and concern for the fishery and then through thorough analyzing , come to my own opinion.

Biologist or special interest group.

 

But back to the post I made ...it was not about muskie...it was about the waters and our fishery.

 

M.

[Crazyhook]

Muskies aside...

 

There is nothing wrong with keeping fish for the table. I would rather go and kill a lake trout, spec, walleye for a fresh meal. Its alot better then eating the farm raised steroid crap they have in the grocery stores.

 

There is alot at stake with the resource, we are very lucky to be able to catch the fish we do. I agree we need to protect it

[Chris]

Those quotes are based on conditions in 2004, as you can see my opinions are reflecting the conditions in 2008 (or close to it) and you can see that since then VHS, gobies and Zebra mussles and cormorants since then have devastated much of some water systems.

 

Matt, VHS, gobies, zebra mussels and cormorants have been around long, long before 2004....where did you get your info? And how do you quantify the damage done by those invasive species? Do you have a study or report? Besides how is regulating anglers going to prevent diseases like VHS and invasive species like gobies, zebra mussels and cormorants? Regulating anglers is a bandaid solution to a bigger problem (ie. ships dumping ballast in the Great Lakes). Why not tackle the real problem and have an area where foreign ships can safely dump ballast BEFORE entering the Seaway as Marc suggested. Why allow them to dump and then take it out on anglers thru restrictive regs?

 

I believe that it may appear that muskies are more prevalent but I take into account better angling techniques and higher profile catches, if you combine this with catch and release it may give the impression of a healthier fishery but the log program has in the past couple years shown different. LSC had 50% less fish caught after the first year of VHS, the larry was close as well.

 

You will have to take that up with the biologists who made those claims. Matt, it seems you only want to agree with them when they support your position.

 

"Overall, Ontario's muskellunge fisheries appear to be stable and sustainable. This can be attributed to an increase in the catch-and-release ethic as well as new minimun size limit regulations."

 

I agree with that 100%. But that doens't mean pressure won't affect it and it can be ignored. But as I said....a lot has happened to our waters since 2004.

 

Matt, I don't understand, on one hand you agree that our fisheries are stable and sustainable....and yet you are also claiming that the "resource is in need of as much help as possible." Can you please be more specific (maybe a study or report backing your statement) with what has happened in the three open seasons that have occurred since Nov. 2004 that have wreaked havoc on our resource. Pointing out a few waterbodies that have had problems (LSC and the Larry) is not representative of the resource in whole and does not mean that those fisheries have been ruined beyond recovery. Nature has a funny way of balancing things out. If you still feel that anglers are somehow responsible for problems on the Larry, maybe consider the 6 large muskies harvested from the St. Lawrence in the past 4 years by your fellow members. I've got no problem with someone keeping a fish of a lifetime, but don't you think it's hypocritical for a group that is fanatical about promoting C&R to others, to bag six large specimens from a single waterbody that's already been hit with VHS.

 

It would be interesting to see if a biologist would confirm the (never been better) statement today. I'll listen to anyone or group that has experience in and concern for the fishery and then through thorough analyzing , come to my own opinion.

Biologist or special interest group.

 

Again Matt, you're claiming that you will listen to scientists and biologists yet it seems you are only willing to listen to them when they support your position.

[Smokey]

ChrisS, you have done nothing to add to this thread. You have managed in every one of your posts to attack Muskies Canada though or Matt's group as you call it. Marc posted a great question, why not leave your personal thoughts about one organization out of it and try adding something positive to the thread.

 

Matt, I don't understand, on one hand you agree that our fisheries are stable and sustainable....and yet you are also claiming that the "resource is in need of as much help as possible."

 

I think what is being said here is that if we don't stop our bad habits now as human beings and our affects on the environment, it will go too far and we will lose in the end.

 

This whole issue is about protecting and trying to improve on what we have here in Ontario and making it work to protect our future.

 

Mike

[Chris]

Hi Smokey, if you would take a minute and go back you will see that I HAVE answered Marc's question. He asked what everyone's thoughts were on the resource and I answered that I think that many unneccesary new regulations have been introduced, many because of lobbying by well-meaning but overzealous clubs and special interest groups. And yes (now that you've mentioned them) I do feel Muskies Canada fits that description. What, are they above scrutiny??? Should we just shut up and agree with everything they say??? Is anyone who questions a fishing club's motives "attacking" the club??? Aren't you attacking me for holding a different opinion than you (the same way Matt attacked those who had a different opinion than he did in his original post)??? Have I said anything in any of my posts that is untrue or slanderous???

 

You and I simply share different opinions. If you are unhappy about me pointing out the fact that several large fish were harvested, maybe you should take that up with the anglers involved.

 

Geez you guys are intense. Lighten up it's Christmas time.

[bigfish1965]

After reading many post on new regs and disapointements in regards to our overall resource

What are your thoughts of the futur of our resources in your perception?

What impacts and issue do you consider needs the most attention in coming years?

 

I don't think there is an overall loss of resource. In fact in most of Ontario, fishing has never been better. Alot of the issues come from the allocation of resources and a lack of enforcement.

The south gets quite a bit of the money, and if you look at it as a per capita thing, it makes sense. If you look at is as dollars per waterbody, it does not.

But to those not living around Lake Ontario, it is hard to justify current norms on the put and take fishery. Wouldn't it be better to allow Lake Ontario to develop its own natural fishery? Just keep care of the water and the rest will take care of itself. Are we, by stocking salmon and trout, reducing the potential for Lake Ontario to have its own naturally massive walleye fishery? I'm not for the extirpation of non-native species, but we should at least not encourage their existence by placing them there intentionally.

Lake Erie managed to get a fantastic fishery with little intervention other than limits on anglers and commercial fishermen.

Enforcement is a big issue for me. There is no point at all in making new laws when we cannot enforce the ones we have now.