thow the big ones back

[danc]

the size of "prime spawners" is six inches in southern ontario,

 

First thing that I'll admit is that I'm not a biologist. But, your very own quote above suggests that you are pushing for the killing of prime spawners for the table. Or am I reading something wrong here? Are you not, in one thread, saying to keep the small fish, and the in another thread saying that the prime spawners are 6" fish?

 

"Ive been saying for years that the secret to recovering the brook trout fishery in southern ontario would be to make the limit 5 of which only one can be over 8 inches."

 

Killing prime spawners has never been a great way to preserve a fishery to me.

[Musky or Specks]

First thing that I'll admit is that I'm not a biologist. But, your very own quote above suggests that you are pushing for the killing of prime spawners for the table. Or am I reading something wrong here? Are you not, in one thread, saying to keep the small fish, and the in another thread saying that the prime spawners are 6" fish?

 

"Ive been saying for years that the secret to recovering the brook trout fishery in southern ontario would be to make the limit 5 of which only one can be over 8 inches."

 

Killing prime spawners has never been a great way to preserve a fishery to me.

The prime spawners is in quotes because they make up the majority of spawners but in no way are they the prime spawners. The real prime spawners have actually been harvested to the point of virtual extinction. We are pretty close to actually making the same argument just using different numbers. The southern ontario problem is so different from the problems that you have in the north. To sum up you are trying to protect the prime spawning life cycle while still allowing a trophy fishery. Down here we need to create a prime spawning population by 1-protecting those fish whose genes we want to become the base for better genetic diversity 2-removing an overabundance of weak genetic stock 3 still trying to satisfy an insatiabal angling appetite that exist in southern Ontario. All of it is problably moot though Ive fought my battles and the OMB wins every one. The urban brook trout is on its way to extinction.

Id like to add the OMB to this list of causes

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

Edited April 18, 2008 by Musky or Specks

[Sinker]

The #1 first thing that has to be done to save brookies in southern ON, is habitat restoration.

 

 

Do you really believe that the harvest of brookies is the main issue down here? Think again......

 

You can release all the prime breeders you want, but if they can't successfully spawn, you may as well have a nice fish fry with them!!

 

I'm sure its a different story for nipigon, but I don't know much about that area at all.......

 

Sinker

[Musky or Specks]

The #1 first thing that has to be done to save brookies in southern ON, is habitat restoration.

Do you really believe that the harvest of brookies is the main issue down here? Think again......

 

You can release all the prime breeders you want, but if they can't successfully spawn, you may as well have a nice fish fry with them!!

 

I'm sure its a different story for nipigon, but I don't know much about that area at all.......

 

Sinker

OMG !!! I just cant stand people on the internet its very frustrating. Read all of my post and the original post. Then we'll talk. Do you know what the OMB is ?? Ive been fighting the battle for urban brook trout since '92 on behalf of you and your children. Its a thankless battle and Ive lost every single fight. Ive watched three beautiful little creeks with self sustaining brook trout populations wiped into extinction by the OMB because brook trout arent "endangered" or "threatened". Yet I defy anyone to find one in city limits anymore? I know of two more that are about to become "in' city limits and Ill give each one about five years till they are gone. Ive worked with a Dr Plank who had this great idea for saving urban trout streams with groundwater recharge ponds built to specific limits to ensure a constant cold water recharge only it didnt work in the winter and all the trout moved out and would have eventually died of thermal stress the next summer. Ive sat on government approval boards who only concern when it all boils down to it is do we increase our tax base. I had a developer in my pocket to develop an entire subdivision with its main selling point being a trout stream flowing through the middle of it. It would have been a ground breaking enviromental planning coup. The developer was going to foot the entire bill and let me tell you it wasn't cheap. And NIMBY's fought against it and saved their scrub bush that everyone dumps their garbage into so they can enjoy the wilderness and the milkcrates and junk food wrappers until eventually a developer comes along and they dont care anymore and the developer doesnt care anymore and wham bam thank you mam there goes another speck creek.Now you've got me started I gotta go cool down. The habitat destuction is the main issue but of coarse thats not what the OP was about now was it.

[Sinker]

Down here we need to create a prime spawning population by 1-protecting those fish whose genes we want to become the base for better genetic diversity 2-removing an overabundance of weak genetic stock 3 still trying to satisfy an insatiabal angling appetite that exist in southern Ontario.

 

I was just goin by what you said here.......nothing about habitat in there......

 

Funny how this went from keeping the small ones, to a full on brook trout thread.

 

Sorry for getting involved......I just thought someone had to mention habitat loss in here.

 

Sinker

[Musky or Specks]

I was just goin by what you said here.......nothing about habitat in there......

 

Funny how this went from keeping the small ones, to a full on brook trout thread.

 

Sorry for getting involved......I just thought someone had to mention habitat loss in here.

 

Sinker

But if you felt a need to contribute which you do and should , you should read the whole post to understand whats going on before joining into the middle of a discussion. I know its a lot of work but before you become critical its something you should do. And we should have more full on brook trout threadss just to put a smile on everyones face heres some nice brook trout porn( its a fetish I have) (what I consider) southern ontario brook trout 23" of power on a an ultralight and a rapala still in its mouth.

 

[Musky or Specks]

I was just goin by what you said here.......nothing about habitat in there......

 

Funny how this went from keeping the small ones, to a full on brook trout thread.

 

Sorry for getting involved......I just thought someone had to mention habitat loss in here.

 

Sinker

One other note Ive basically been told point blank that brook trout will always loose the battle of habitat loss(until its to late) and so improving our genetic stock might be one of the only management tools available.

[steverowbotham]

The #1 first thing that has to be done to save brookies in southern ON, is habitat restoration.

Do you really believe that the harvest of brookies is the main issue down here? Think again......

 

You can release all the prime breeders you want, but if they can't successfully spawn, you may as well have a nice fish fry with them!!

 

I'm sure its a different story for nipigon, but I don't know much about that area at all.......

 

Sinker

 

You cant restore springs and upwellings, which brook trout require to spawn.

[Sinker]

You cant restore springs and upwellings, which brook trout require to spawn.

 

 

 

 

Ahhhh......I wont bother. I'm done....

 

Sinker

[Musky or Specks]

You cant restore springs and upwellings, which brook trout require to spawn.

Actually the work I was doing with Mr Plank was all about doing just that. And it worked every season except winter.

[Chris]

There should be a ban on targetting trophy size fish. Instead of everyone going after big fish, we could brag about who caught the smallest one.

 

(Just yankin' yur chain guys)

[ccmtcanada]

I never throw fish...I gently place them back in the water.....

 

Ok...not entirely true...I'll put a minnow on a hook and cast the thing out there.

[Greencoachdog]

We used to have Brookies down here, but not anymore... we ate them all!!!

[Greencoachdog]

Ok, everyone that knows me on this board should know I was kiddin' with my first 2 posts to this thread.

 

I agree with the article in the main post to this thread... but not completely. It really depends on the species and body of water. Your local marine biologists are aware of these facts and take them into consideration when making the creel, size, and slot limits.

 

Some species may need to breed at least once before being harvested, hence a minimum size limit (like our state wide 9" minimum length limit for Crappie here). Other species may have too many small fish and not enough medium sized fish for that certain body of water, thus a slot limit.

 

Forage fish control may also need to be taken into consideration, too many tiny forage fish is another reason to have a minimum size limit on a certain species. Too many large forage fish may mandate a conservative creel limit on larger fish. Too many large sport fish in a body of water may make a liberal creel limit on them necessary.

 

I personally am not above taking matters into my own hands if I find a body of water or an area in a body of water with too many stunted fish, down here in the south it's usually Sunfish and mainly Fliers. I'll catch every one of them I can and cut them in half and send them to the bottom of the lake for other fish and aquatic life to feed on. I'll do this until the numbers have been reduced so that they aren't as easy to catch anymore. I'll then leave the area and won't return for a year. After the year is up, I'll return to find some of the most beautiful Bluegills and Redear Sunfish you've ever seen. I'm not saying this method is for evryone or every area, but it works for me down in the south here.

 

Feel free to verbally punish me if you so desire... I thrive on the abuse!!!

[rickster]

TILLER

[Ramble]

This is a good thread fellas.....aside for a touch of hostility every now and then lol

 

Cold water streams in southern ontario are a dying bread. I understand pretty well what all of the arguments are here....but i'm going to have to side with habitat loss as THE major concern. Genetics is definatly #2 for preserving a species like brookies, but controlling the gene pool is pointless if the habitat doesn't exist. First and formest the habitat needs to be protected. Once that is done, efforts to restore the gene pool should definalty be the next step. But protecting habitat is HARD to do in southern Ontario.

 

 

 

What I understand here so far, is that Muskey or Specks is saying that we should protect the genes 1st.

 

At first i was skeptical of this approach, but i think i understand now. Habitat loss is the major concern for brookies....but harvesting of breaders is also a major problem. Controlling what fish are kept through the regs is a H3LL of a lot easier then rehabilitating the streams which are in trouble. The genetcis aspect is a very easy fix though regulation compared to stream rehab....which takes a lot of time and money.Plus for streams which are healthy it positivly benifits the whole fishery. As for the disagreement between Muskey or Specks and Dan...they are arguing the same thing....using a different method. I think what needs to be done with the population is a 2 stage regulatory approach. 1st would be to protect the large spawning fish like Muskey or Specks suggested until the population demographic can rebound, and we can get some of teh bigger fish back. Once the population demographics of the fish have reached better proportions then implement regs like Dan was suggesting where the late life fish are harvested. This technique should foster the breaders to remain in the population.

 

This kind of thinking inevatibly leads to a slot size approach for protection of the key breaders. Protection of the fish which will have the most spawning still to do ONLY makes sence.

 

 

 

Greencoach brings up another point, the biologists SHOULD know whats going on. HOWEVER I feel that for southern ontario the brookie regulations for wild populations are FAR too lax. Especially for small streams which have unique populations....there is no way the MNR biologists know what each streams population is doing. I think the regs need to change for brookies and err more on the side of caution, and for southern ontario they should be listed as a threatened species.

 

 

 

My overal point here is that any plan needs to consider both genetics and habitat TOGETHER. At our current stage, putting more effort into protecting the genetics only makes sence since it's teh easiest to fix though regulations.

 

Anyway, thats my interpration and 2 cents.

 

-R-

[Musky or Specks]

This is a good thread fellas.....aside for a touch of hostility every now and then lol

 

Cold water streams in southern ontario are a dying bread. I understand pretty well what all of the arguments are here....but i'm going to have to side with habitat loss as THE major concern. Genetics is definatly #2 for preserving a species like brookies, but controlling the gene pool is pointless if the habitat doesn't exist. First and formest the habitat needs to be protected. Once that is done, efforts to restore the gene pool should definalty be the next step. But protecting habitat is HARD to do in southern Ontario.

What I understand here so far, is that Muskey or Specks is saying that we should protect the genes 1st.

 

At first i was skeptical of this approach, but i think i understand now. Habitat loss is the major concern for brookies....but harvesting of breaders is also a major problem. Controlling what fish are kept through the regs is a H3LL of a lot easier then rehabilitating the streams which are in trouble. The genetcis aspect is a very easy fix though regulation compared to stream rehab....which takes a lot of time and money.Plus for streams which are healthy it positivly benifits the whole fishery. As for the disagreement between Muskey or Specks and Dan...they are arguing the same thing....using a different method. I think what needs to be done with the population is a 2 stage regulatory approach. 1st would be to protect the large spawning fish like Muskey or Specks suggested until the population demographic can rebound, and we can get some of teh bigger fish back. Once the population demographics of the fish have reached better proportions then implement regs like Dan was suggesting where the late life fish are harvested. This technique should foster the breaders to remain in the population.

 

This kind of thinking inevatibly leads to a slot size approach for protection of the key breaders. Protection of the fish which will have the most spawning still to do ONLY makes sence.

Greencoach brings up another point, the biologists SHOULD know whats going on. HOWEVER I feel that for southern ontario the brookie regulations for wild populations are FAR too lax. Especially for small streams which have unique populations....there is no way the MNR biologists know what each streams population is doing. I think the regs need to change for brookies and err more on the side of caution, and for southern ontario they should be listed as a threatened species.

My overal point here is that any plan needs to consider both genetics and habitat TOGETHER. At our current stage, putting more effort into protecting the genetics only makes sence since it's teh easiest to fix though regulations.

 

Anyway, thats my interpration and 2 cents.

 

-R-

Excellent post you've got the gist of the point Im trying to make. Although I never said protection of the gene pool should be first, the threads original post is about genes so thats were my original contribution came in. Heck bios dont know hardly anything about the waters they are working with. Ive been informed of coldwater habitat I didnt know existed many times. Its anglers who need to participate in fisheries planning meetings and other public interations with the regulators that leads to a sharing of knowledge and a protection of all species.

As for the touch of hostility, I kind of look at it as a bunch of guys passionately argueing about their favourite sports player/team. You might get excited and disagree about specifics but the fact of the matter is we all love the game.

[danbouck]

Console!

[danc]

Dr Cook put the Nip on the map. People have been traveling to fish the Nipigon since long before Rob was born and will continue to fish it long after he is gone but he has left an important legacy.

 

If you can get your hands on the RAP publication entitled "A History on the Nipigon area with an emphasis on fisheries", then do so. It's an eye opener for sure. You might appreciate Robs work a little more after you read it. Dr. Cook did nothing more than catch a fish. Rob saved the planet.

[bigfish1965]

I'm not a biologist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

There are two different factors when trying to manage stocks and genes. One is viability the other is genetic value.

This is one of the reasons we see slot limits. It does both...protects the more prolific spawners in the mid-size range and protects the less prolific, but more valued trophy size fish genes.

This assumes a certain life span. I was not aware of the 5 year lifespan of brook trout. This certainly complicates things as far as fitting into the common mold.

[Cookslav]

weve lost three streams in the town of kitchener in the last ten years

 

Ummm Kitchener is a City, not a town and your a LIAR!!!

There are no fish in Kitchener....

(kidding of course)

 

 

Habitat loss is surely a major issue for Specs in this area particularily but so is our "so called" climate change.

Many springs are starting to dry up in this area....Aberfoyle, and Formasa areas comes to mind.

I've also seen a huge flow reduction is some Nith River feeder streams as well.

Then you have the rapid spread of Brownies moving into river areas once considered Speck habitat to boot.

 

But for the most part I think most of this urban Speck fishing Debate is kinda redundent...

When it comes to keeping fish in an otherwised comprimised area I think its a no brainer not to keep any at all is it not?

Besides when catching fish in an urban area I definatly wouldn't keep any for consumption....Especially anything I caught around here LOL!

[kickingfrog]

Wonder were those springs have gone?

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...tional/Ontario/

 

A snippet from the article about water bottling company being allowed to take water from the area:

 

"I'm disappointed that they did not reduce their volume, nor did they address the whole issue of giving a public resource away to a private enterprise for free," said Mark Goldberg, co-founder of Wellington Water Watchers, a local activist group.

 

The province levies a one-time $3,000 processing fee on complicated water permits that need a scientific evaluation. Beginning next year, it will charge an additional fee of $3.71 for every million litres permit holders withdraw, or $13.36 a day if Nestlé takes its full allotment.

 

 

You read that right $3.71 per million litres.

 

3.6 million litres of water a day, every day.

 

You think it's only big oil that's screwing you and the environment, think again.

[forrest]

Wonder were those springs have gone?

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...tional/Ontario/

 

A snippet from the article about water bottling company being allowed to take water from the area:

 

"I'm disappointed that they did not reduce their volume, nor did they address the whole issue of giving a public resource away to a private enterprise for free," said Mark Goldberg, co-founder of Wellington Water Watchers, a local activist group.

 

The province levies a one-time $3,000 processing fee on complicated water permits that need a scientific evaluation. Beginning next year, it will charge an additional fee of $3.71 for every million litres permit holders withdraw, or $13.36 a day if Nestlé takes its full allotment.

You read that right $3.71 per million litres.

 

3.6 million litres of water a day, every day.

 

You think it's only big oil that's screwing you and the environment, think again.

 

Sounds like a whole other thread. Yep, the Nestle thing is making a lot of people angry. My opinion is that the government is letting Nestle kill parts of an eco-system from the area:

 

As usual the involved corporation is lying by crying obviously faulty/blind logic::

 

The company's pumping has exerted enough pressure to cause surface water in a creek near its site to be drawn underground, but Nestlé has maintained that the effect is of no consequence because it hasn't affected flow rates of the stream.

 

If I know a product is theirs I do not buy it. Think about how they are sucking KW (and other areas)dry next time you take a sip of Nestle:

http://www.nestle.ca/en/products/index.htm

+ Nestle Pure Life

+ Aberfoyle springs water

+ Nestlé PURE LIFE, Nestlé Aquarel, Perrier, Evian, Montclair, Vittel, Contrex,S. Pellegrino, Acqua Panna, Levissima, Vera, Viladrau, Arrowhead, Poland Spring,

Santa Maria, La Vie, Deer Park, Al Manhal, Ozarka, Hepar, Aberfoyle.

 

+Here is an official boycott page

 

forrest

[Musky or Specks]

Ummm Kitchener is a City, not a town and your a LIAR!!!

There are no fish in Kitchener....

(kidding of course)

Habitat loss is surely a major issue for Specs in this area particularily but so is our "so called" climate change.

Many springs are starting to dry up in this area....Aberfoyle, and Formasa areas comes to mind.

I've also seen a huge flow reduction is some Nith River feeder streams as well.

Then you have the rapid spread of Brownies moving into river areas once considered Speck habitat to boot.

 

But for the most part I think most of this urban Speck fishing Debate is kinda redundent...

When it comes to keeping fish in an otherwised comprimised area I think its a no brainer not to keep any at all is it not?

Besides when catching fish in an urban area I definatly wouldn't keep any for consumption....Especially anything I caught around here LOL!

Ideally yes but Im talking about a comprehensive zone wide regulation and joe angling public would have a coniption if you said you cant keep trout anymore.

[Musky or Specks]

I'm not a biologist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

There are two different factors when trying to manage stocks and genes. One is viability the other is genetic value.

This is one of the reasons we see slot limits. It does both...protects the more prolific spawners in the mid-size range and protects the less prolific, but more valued trophy size fish genes.

This assumes a certain life span. I was not aware of the 5 year lifespan of brook trout. This certainly complicates things as far as fitting into the common mold.

Because five years is only an average life span they can and do live as long as ten years.