northern pike regulations

[tapout]

bellyachin' and cryin' aboot the lack of fish

 

 

"aboot"? GCD...are you taking a shot at us Canucks? lol

[Greencoachdog]

He is right GCD. Do your own research.

 

 

I am doing research right here on this thread, seems that no one can answer the question definitly with exactly what group and exactly what regs!

 

 

tapout Posted Today, 11:42 AM

QUOTE(GCD @ Dec 27 2008, 10:04 PM)

bellyachin' and cryin' aboot the lack of fish

 

 

 

"aboot"? GCD...are you taking a shot at us Canucks? lol

 

 

Who?... me????

Edited December 28, 2008 by GCD

[jwl]

this is what ya do with the ones you can keep

[Dano]

I am doing research right here on this thread, seems that no one can answer the question definitly with exactly what group and exactly what regs!

 

I wouldnt call asking a question on an open public forum research but....... ask Wayne about the winter lake trout season on Temagami for a simple example.

 

Edited to add: I'm sure if you dig a bit, you could find regs in your country that have more to do with lobbyists and certain agendas as opposed to real biology.

Edited December 28, 2008 by Dano

[Greencoachdog]

I wouldnt call asking a question on an open public forum research but....... ask Wayne about the winter lake trout season on Temagami for a simple example.

 

Someone said, that someone said?

 

 

Sounds like another Conspiracy Theory.

[Guest steel'n'esox]

Just because your socks and underwear that Santa brought dont fit, you should take it up with the guy in the big red suit, and not be so negative as he knows if you have been bad or good so if youse children dont play nicely next years clothes might not fit also?

[Greencoachdog]

Just because your socks and underwear that Santa brought dont fit, you should take it up with the guy in the big red suit, and not be so negative as he knows if you have been bad or good so if youse children dont play nicely next years clothes might not fit also?

 

 

i know it...

 

I'm so vile...... nevermind, I've already told that one.

 

 

.. but really, all special interest groups can do is "ask", petition, and lobby for reg changes... they don't make the regs!

 

Conservative regulations and the current breeding stock are the future of our fisheries!!! Not the little immature fish. If you take the current breeding stock out of a water body, you'll have year class lapses in size and that's not good.

 

If you have a slot limit on a lake that is protecting the prime breeders, there's going to be a bunch of small fish. That's why the MNR encourages the taking of the smaller fish!!!

 

I personally feel that people that oppose conservative fishing regulations may have just a touch of greed in them, if you can't catch enough of one species to feed you or your family... target a second species to go with them, and if that isn't enough... target a third species!!!

[Northhunter]

I hear where pike slayer's coming from as I'm going through it on Nipissing with walleye.

 

The fish in the slot are prime eating. I would prefer to keep 1 or 2 larger fish but can't unless I land something over 60cm (something I would probably prefer to release anyway - just me). Now if I want to eat walleye I have to keep fish under 40cm. There's exceptions, but generally fish just under the slot are less than a year from reproducing for the first time.

 

Keep 4 fish that are immature but have beat all the odds and are one step away from contributing to the the health of the population.

 

OR

 

Keep 1 or 2 fish that have already made a couple trips to the spawning grounds.

 

You're getting roughly the same amount of meat from either option, now which would you rather choose? One removes an awful lot of reproductive potential from the population (both do - but 3 or 4 fish that haven't spawned vs. 1 or 2 that have?) The other will get you a nice fine.

 

I know why the regs are the way they are. Is it a problem that I have issues with the above scenario?

 

 

Re; special interest groups, etc. Believe it, GCD. That kinda stuff does go on up here. We live here. We work here. We play here (us Canucks) - a few of us even know a thing or two about what goes on around us.

 

The ministry recently amalgamated/revised all the divisions. Their reasoning was to make everything simpler, easy to follow. But they are also broke and trying to cost cut. Changes were made in areas where the regs had been the same for years and worked, didn't need revision. But we got stuck with larger and fewer divisions. A lot of the fisheries within these larger division got painted with the same brush in terms of regs - it doesn't really make sense to a lot of guys like pike slayer, or myself for that matter. He's just voicing what he thinks. "Marine Biologist" or not.

[pike slayer]

thanks alot northhunter!

you couldnt have said it any better. this is my exact thinking, you explained it way better then i ever could.

[Greencoachdog]

Re; special interest groups, etc. Believe it, GCD. That kinda stuff does go on up here. We live here. We work here. We play here (us Canucks) - a few of us even know a thing or two about what goes on around us.

 

I keep hearing this, but nobody can seem to name any of these groups or the regs they supposedly changed.. why is that?... especially if you know what's going on around you!

 

 

I personally feel that people that oppose conservative fishing regulations may have just a touch of greed in them, if you can't catch enough of one species to feed you or your family... target a second species to go with them, and if that isn't enough... target a third species!!!

 

Did you happen to catch this part of my last post?

[Northhunter]

Try google Greencoach. I'm on holidays.

 

Off the top of my head... the Aurora trout season was closed because of a new species at risk act a few years ago. With the exception of 2 places where they reproduce naturally, they are stocked, and these stocked lakes are open on a rotation. 2 of 9 lakes for a short season every year. The season still got closed.

 

I did catch the last part of your post. Did you read mine? I'd prefer to keep fewer walleye. Limit your catch. The problem (and need for the slot) is there will be 800 huts on Nip Jan 1st full of guys who are mostly from out of town and don't because they are here once a year. A good number of the fish they keep would have spawned for the first time this spring.

Edited December 29, 2008 by Northhunter

[steverowbotham]

what are you gonna do with a bunch of 7 pounders?? Honestly?

 

Regs are in place for a reason, I wouldnt argue. If no one takes the small ones, then they reproduce so fast that the fish get stunted from over population and competition for food, then you'll have no big ones to catch. Keep some little ones for a while.

[Chris]

GCD.......PM sent

[Cookslav]

(GCD @ Dec 28 2008, 02:27 PM) *

I am doing research right here on this thread, seems that no one can answer the question definitly with exactly what group and exactly what regs!

 

Heres a great exsample...

Although its about Hunting, but its the same idea.

 

Source:

http://www.ofah.org/bear/History.cfm

 

Events Leading to the Cancellation of the Spring Bear Hunt

 

Please find below a list of chronological events leading up to the cancellation of the spring bear hunt. Click here for the official press release that was released by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources on January 15, 1999.

 

December 18, 1997

 

F.W.C.A. receives Royal Assent; Spring Bear Hunt remains intact.

December, 1997 - December 1998

 

Regulations being considered.

October 7, 1998

 

Minister John Snobelen, through his Deputy Minister, promises the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (O.F.A.H.) and Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters (N.O.T.O.) that there will be no changes to the spring bear hunt unless both O.F.A.H. and N.O.T.O. agree.

December 17, 1998

 

Minister Snobelen states in a letter that there is no basis to cancel the spring bear hunt and that the spring is, in many ways, the best time to hunt bears.

January 1. 1999

 

F.W.C.A. is proclaimed into law with the spring bear hunt intact.

January 5 or 7, 1999

 

Robert Schad (who in November/December 1998 launched a two million dollar public advertising campaign against the spring bear hunt by targeting vulnerable Conservative MPP's in Southern Ontario), met with Premier Harris.

January 8, 1999

 

On the January 8. 1999 weekend, N.O.T.O. past President Roger Liddle received a telephone call directly from Premier Harris who advised the spring bear hunt was being cancelled.

January 12, 1999

 

Premier received the Premier's Briefing Note entided "Implementation Plan for Closing the Spring Bear Hunt"

January 14, 1999

 

N.O.T.O. President writes to Premier's office expressing extreme disappointment in the Premier's decision to cancel the spring bear hunt (contrary to the position stated by the Crown, there was no response to this letter or denial that it was the Premier who made the decision).

January 15, 1999

 

Government publicly announces cancellation of spring bear hunt because "it will not tolerate cubs being orphaned by hunters mistakenly [and illegally] shooting mother bears in the spring."

 

 

Source:

http://www.iwmc.org/IWMC-Forum/JamesLawrence/040209-01.htm

 

Robert Schad is listed by Canadian Business Magazine as the 45th richest man in Canada. He likes bears… all kinds of bears… but in particular he likes Ontario black bears. He and his minions struggled against public opinion for many years trying to get the province's bear hunt cancelled. They bombarded the public with radio, billboards and television advertising claiming the bears were endangered, they were being killed to extinction for their gall bladders, and hunting black bears over bait was unethical.

 

His plea was totally emotional and had little to do with truth. The fact that the spring hunt was no threat at all to the healthy black bear population of Ontario (estimated to be at least 100,000), was of little or no importance to Schad and his doomsayers.

 

 

Bottom line....

Sometimes Special interest groups can actually change the regs.

It does happen, and I'd bet the farm local lodges have their say with the MP's in "some" instances when it comes to fishing.

My guess is its a rare, but happening occurance.

[Guest gbfisher]

Heres a great exsample...

Although its about Hunting, but its the same idea..

 

I was gonna add that little tid bit...but 'The Nuge' never answered my email as to the who and why it got banned. ....

 

 

Its to bad that Hunters and Anglers don't stay together on these things.

Divided we fall.

 

[Cookslav]

Yup...

Its true, give an inch & they try for a mile...

We gotta stick together.

 

I gotta say a slot for Pike does seem odd for northern Ontario?

I find it a bit hard to believe populations of Pike are hurting up that way?

I'm no expert by any means, and wouldn't have any grounds to dispute the slots, But I could see the Ban being more related to Tourism, and breeding Trophy Pike then conserving their population given the geographic area.

Heck most Guys Up that way that I know catch so many they consider them a pest LOL...

[Northhunter]

There's the "white moose" (near Chapleau?) as well. A few people got together (I guess you could call that a special interest group) and started lobbying to protect them. There's nothing special about the moose except their colour. They are part of the normal population and gene pool and are not a distinct species or anything like that. The ones that are white just have a recessive gene, but now you cannot shoot a "white" moose in 2 WMU's in the north because they are of "spiritual significance" - no biology needed.

 

Someone mentioned the lake trout and Irishfield's neck of the woods. Temagami is it's own fishery, a large secular lake. At one point their lake trout regs were to be changed to be the same as the "provincial standard" (I dunno if that's the case now or not). Their walleye regs were changed to "harmonize with FMZ 11 - North Bay". North Bay is 80km away and lies on one of the heaviest pressured walleye fisheries in the province!

 

There was opposition to such drastic changes, but they went through. Now what went on in the meetings and who went to them... I dunno. I wasn't there.

[Northhunter]

Yup...

Its true, give an inch & they try for a mile...

We gotta stick together.

 

I gotta say a slot for Pike does seem odd for northern Ontario?

I find it a bit hard to believe populations of Pike are hurting up that way?

I'm no expert by any means, and wouldn't have any grounds to dispute the slots, But I could see the Ban being more related to Tourism, and breeding Trophy Pike then conserving their population given the geographic area.

Heck most Guys Up that way that I know catch so many they consider them a pest LOL...

 

The populations are not hurting, and the slot is odd as there wasn't really a need for it. The "6 fish, any size" deal was working. Don't fix it if it ain't broken. Pike are probably the most abundant and widespread sportfish in the north, and most people release them. You can fish for them year round, even while they are stacked up like cordwood in the spawning bays... kinda odd, if a slot system is needed, no?

 

Same deal on Nipissing. The musky fishery flourished under the old regs. It was mostly C&R, self regulated. Now in order to keep one it pretty well has to be a trophy class fish. It doesn't make a whole lotta sense. Why the change? Again, I dunno... I wasn't in the meetings. You could call the MNR and ask... but you'll likely get their PR response.