Catching Limit

[laszlo]

This may be a touchy subject and I'm really not trying to stir the pot here. Over the last 15 years fish populations have reduced substantually. Yes, there are many factors for this but are people keeping too many fish???

 

In zone 16 of Ontario this could be had with a sporting liscense in one day:

 

Hit a Lake and keep - 4 Walleye

6 Bass

6 Pike

1 Muskey

50 Perch

30 Crappie

50 Sunfish

2 Lake Trout

12 Whitefish

and so on.........

 

Same day hit a river and keep - 5 Brook Trout

5 Brown Trout

2 Rainbow Trout

and so on.........

 

Well that would be an amazing day of fishing and realisticly would never happen but, just that fact that the law makes this a possibility,

does seem suspect. The good thing is that a large percentage of fisherman are conservationist.

 

This all comes down to one question.

 

Who believes that fish limits should be further reduced from the current limits?

Edited May 16, 2009 by laszlo

[Greencoachdog]

I think having a slot or size limit for each species would be a better idea, keeping the prime breeders in the system is a must!!!

[Spiel]

Well not exactly, with trout/salmon you are allowed a combined limit of 5 per day/possesion. In most cases no more than 2 may be lake trout.

[Marko]

Imagine having to clean and fillet 50 Perch or 50 sunfish....that`d be just awful.

[timmeh]

I think having a slot or size limit for each species would be a better idea, keeping the prime breeders in the system is a must!!!

 

I certainly agree with this. Selective harvest is key to maintaining healthy fish populations. But personally i wouldn't mind seeing a few of those numbers lowered.

[Terry]

in many cases the fishing has never been better in my life time

 

the limits are somewhat based on the health of the fishery

besides, if you are catching that many different fish everyday, you clearly don't have a job, so it might be the only food you get each day for you family

[outllaw]

zone 19 is 6 walleyes. keep em yessir.

commercial netting -99.06 percent

sportfishing 0.04 per-cent.

so as you can see its a lopsided affair.

[kickingfrog]

Right, legal and ethic are not always the same thing.

 

I'll throw hypothetical situation out there:

 

I go walleye fishing once a year to a lake/zone that has a 4 fish daily limit and 8 possession. I fish three days. I catch and keep 4 fish, 4 fish and 4 fish. I don't eat any of the 12 fish and bring them home to eat over the next several months. I am breaking the law by being over my possession limit. My friend who lives on the lake fishes every weekend (the lucky sod) and keeps 2 fish every time and eats them right away, over 100 fish during the season. Totally legal.

 

He's legal, I'm not. Who made less of an impact on the fish stock? Are my ethics "better" than his? Who is right?

 

Another situation:

 

My mother only goes out once with me during my three days of fishing and keeps 5 walleye (she still can out fish me) to take home.

 

Total fish removed from the system:

Mom 5 -braking the law

Me 12 - breaking the law

My friend 100 plus - legal

 

Again a hypothetical scenario for demonstrations only.

[danbouck]

that would be one nice lake!

[bigugli]

Are you suggesting only 1 species per day should be harvested? The limits per species are fine. There are additional limits on size as well with over/under rules for pike and walleye.

 

Truth is fishing has improved substantially since the late 70's in all the areas I fish. Species distribution has change in some areas, and I've learnt to target the more prevalent species as well. Who would dare to admit to fishing carp or catfish back in the 70's? No one.

[laszlo]

I think having a slot or size limit for each species would be a better idea, keeping the prime breeders in the system is a must!!!

 

this is exactly what i'm suggesting with also maybe reducing the limit 'slightly'.

human population continues to grow meaning more and more fisherman.

 

seems logical to me.

[bigugli]

this is exactly what i'm suggesting with also maybe reducing the limit 'slightly'.

human population continues to grow meaning more and more fisherman.

 

seems logical to me.

How about limiting the human population instead. Seems even more logical. Hypothetically.

Edited May 16, 2009 by bigugli

[fish-miester]

thats a good call kickingfrog.. i agree .. i personally think some things defenetly need to be adjusted.

 

as for bigugli.. i second that thought

[laszlo]

How about limiting the human population instead. Seems even more logical. Hypothetically.

 

yes! nobody wants to say it but it's so true.

[BillM]

How about limiting the human population instead. Seems even more logical. Hypothetically.

 

That doesn't seem very logical. Even if the population was decreased, do that mean fishing would be any less popular?

 

The limits that are currently in place suck, no one needs 5 bows out of Lake Ontario in a single day.

[bigugli]

That doesn't seem very logical. Even if the population was decreased, do that mean fishing would be any less popular?

 

No different than 'managing' populations of game and livestock through controlled hunts or culling. Thereby keeping the human populace within a comfortable margin for the food supply.

 

A little Malthus, a little Orwell, a little "Logans Run", and for good measure, some "Soylent Green". Unpleasant, unpalatable and unpopular, but hypothetically possible.

[BillM]

...but very unrealistic unfortunately.

 

I do agree with you somewhat, the problem is it would never happen.

[Greencoachdog]

How about limiting the human population instead. Seems even more logical. Hypothetically.

 

 

.. but what if they wanted to start with you?

[bigugli]

.. but what if they wanted to start with you?

I've had a good run at life. It's not like I would have a choice if it were done.

[MillerPhoto]

Biggests way would be for them to figure out how to manipulate the DNA so women cant get prego until they at like 25!!

 

Too many teen pregnancys....

[hammercarp]

The number of licenced anglers in Ontario has been decreasing for a number of years. So Bigugli, regarding angling, in effect there is a lower human population or what this could mean is that fewer people are obeying the laws in the first place. So catch limits and slots limits don't mean bubkiss to someone who is fishing illegally to begin with.

Kickingfrog the answer to your dilemma is that many times more anglers can visit a lake than live on it.

I think angling laws are already complicated enough. Making laws that are a pile of spagetti is not good. People will refuse to follow them if they are a headache to decipher or they will quit fishing altogether. Either way is not good.

I think Bigugli has the answer fish for a variety of fish. One of the reasons I promote carp fishing is the take the pressure off of the most targeted species.

[bigugli]

The idea of population control for the human species is just a simplistic, yet logical, hypothesis. Not to be taken seriously. Same with quick fix solutions of reducing limits or increasing fines. there aren't enough CO's around to effectively enforce current laws.

What is needed is proactive resource management. Something the average taxpayer does not want to pay for in Ontario. As long as we destroy spawning areas and habitat, pollute, develop wetland, dam rivers, drain down lakes for our consumption, the fishery suffers. Reduced limits are not going to make up for the damage being done. Increased hatchery outputs might help, but that, too, is just a bandaid approach.

Habitat protection and rehabilitation, and spawning ground protection, will achieve superior results. Ensuring that a company like EB Eddy can never again wipe out a fishery with another chemical spill. Stop the development of wetlands. Reduced speed limits in prime shallow water breeding areas. These are proactive ways to help the fishery, but they are expensive.

[fishing]

The maximum number of meals per month is 8 in the "Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish". If a fisherman catches enough fish for 4 lb of fillet in one day, he will not need to keep any fish for himself for one whole month.

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/en/water/fishguide/index.php

[Dara]

Any chance of you guys keeping all these great ideas south of the french river.

We have to put up with enough of your goofy overpopulated southern Ontario laws already.

The people I know that go fishing 3 or 3 times a week and catch a few fish for a meal, go to lakes that will support the pressure. If they won't, they go to a different lake. Don't make laws based on your fishing pressure for us to follow.

Please don't give that stupid government any more good ideas. Wait..I got one...how bout you have to register all the fish you catch and pay a new tax on them. A dollar for each fish caught and kept, 2 dollars for each released fish.

[laszlo]

Any chance of you guys keeping all these great ideas south of the french river.

We have to put up with enough of your goofy overpopulated southern Ontario laws already.

The people I know that go fishing 3 or 3 times a week and catch a few fish for a meal, go to lakes that will support the pressure. If they won't, they go to a different lake. Don't make laws based on your fishing pressure for us to follow.

Please don't give that stupid government any more good ideas. Wait..I got one...how bout you have to register all the fish you catch and pay a new tax on them. A dollar for each fish caught and kept, 2 dollars for each released fish.

 

i believe this is why ontario has different limits and regulations for different zones.

i'm referring specificly to my zone not all of ontario.

lots of fish north of the french.