JohnF Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 John, I think that CA employee was feeding you a line of crap. I thought he was, but the way technology is moving who really knows any more. Whoda thunk a few decades back everybody would be using satellites to clock boat speed. JF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POLLIWOGG Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Doesn't matter how much $ you give MNR if they choose not to come and do some enforcing they aint coming. Probably because its a put and take fishery and they are no longer of value, and any contaminated fish that doesn't die upstream is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRIFTER_016 Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Zero option added. Please explain your choices. All license fees do go to the MNR. Has been that way for a long time. The MNR used to be the biggest Ministry in the province. It is now a Junior Ministry. I think we have an obligation that goes with our right. The only other thing is that anglers are not the only people enjoying the natural resources but pay the lions share of protection. We need everyone pitching in. I like the salmon tag idea. Newfoundland does ( or did ) this. I remember as a kid having a newfoundland tag and sticking it on a chinny in the lower Niagara and releasing the fish. We thought it was funny...see someone catch a fish with a NFLD catch tag on it. And to DAWG..it is a put and take fishery, but it has the potential to be somewhat self sustaining as waterways improve. Not only that but we have to protect it to protect the integrity of the sport. Back when they implemented fishing licenses in Ontario them lying guberment types told us that all monies from the sale of licenses were going to the ministry (I was all for this) What they didn't say was that all current funding was going the way of the DODO and that the license $$$$ were much less than the previous funding. Typical politician double speak, you can't trust them dude's as far as you can throw them!!!!! As for increases, I would pay, heck I just forked out $145 US for my 2009 non-resident Alaskan fishing license!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dara Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Please don't tempt me....lol. My vote is for another 20 bucks and closing of the tribs on the first Saturday of September. We could then use the money for protection of more important resources. We could also then find out whether or not the chinook can be self sustaining. You can't be suggesting that salmon fishing might be stopping them from being self sustaining....can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dara Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 And talking about funding. I remember when the CO's were complaining they didn't have gas money to go back in the bush and patrol, but i saw a CO's truck parked at the beer store. They had gas to stop at the beer store on the way home from work with the company truck. I vote a big fat ZERO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 I'm a firm believer in a single tier fishing license fee. Just becuase you keep fewer fish doesn't mean the costs of the MNR will be less. I currently buy a sport license, but only need a conservation license, so I contribute "ëxtra" that way. I answered $20 more as I think we should all pay about $50/year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siwash Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Does it really matter? Aren't they a put and take fishery and not actually self sustaining... aren't they all going to be dead in a week or 2 anyway?... and from what I understand, they aren't even fit to eat!... the only good part about them is the eggs to use for bait, and why not? The eggs won't hatch and they'll just be wasted anyway... might as well put them to good use!!! Maybe they should just legalize the snagging of Salmon only???... wouldn't that be simpler? There is significant natural reproduction occurring now with Pacific Salmon... much to the chagrin of the OMNR biologists.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singingdog Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) Hikers, naturalists, etc all enjoy what anglers and hunters pay to keep protected. I like the user pay system, myself. But not all users are paying. That's because hunters and fisherman are consuming something from the resource. Not paying? What do you call entrance fees to parks? Permit fees for canoe trails areas? I pay every time I go into Algonquin Park, whether I am fishing or not. I pay a license fee for fishing because the fact that I am fishing creates the need for more enforcement and more protection. Hikers, naturalists, recreational canoeists and other non-consumptive users are not taking anything from the resource, nor do their actions require near as much enforcement infrastructure. Bird-watching license? I would gladly pay it if they would stock good birds in my favourite areas, pay COs to penalise folks that are harming the watchable birds, manage habitat specifically for those species, and do loads of research on the health of watchable bird populations. Edited October 2, 2009 by singingdog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfish1965 Posted October 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 That's because hunters and fisherman are consuming something from the resource. Not paying? What do you call entrance fees to parks? Permit fees for canoe trails areas? I pay every time I go into Algonquin Park, whether I am fishing or not. I pay a license fee for fishing because the fact that I am fishing creates the need for more enforcement and more protection. Hikers, naturalists, recreational canoeists and other non-consumptive users are not taking anything from the resource, nor do their actions require near as much enforcement infrastructure. Bird-watching license? I would gladly pay it if they would stock good birds in my favourite areas, pay COs to penalise folks that are harming the watchable birds, manage habitat specifically for those species, and do loads of research on the health of watchable bird populations. Good points. How could we get more people who use resources like you do more involved in the MNR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehg Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 After talking with a friend in provincial Liberal party a few years ago they explained how less than 1% of monies collected goes back into the ministry. So i wouldn't pay more, the money goes to big business or something. Since this is supposedly the final thread on Lake Ontario trib salmon, was curious of the difference between coho and chinooks. Apparently both are doing the same thing at this time of year, traveling upriver to spawn then die. Why is it that coho are caught with more esteem, are they not both inedible and deteriorating on the inside? I know the coho looks more chrome-like as opposed to an old black 'boot'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kemper Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Cohos seem to be more willing to take bait than chinooks...Actually I latched into two of them last weekend while drifting a pool full of chinooks without hooking a single chinny... Also I seem to remember hearing/reading that they don't all die after the spawn but I may be way off base on that one so don't quote me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Coho's like chinooks die after spawning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLofchik Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 Ho's run & spawn later than Kings, the coho's up the tribs now are the early runners equivalent to early August chinooks. All this talk of license fee's, money, blah blah...you guys do know the MNR spends zero money stocking Kings in Ontario right? All the provincial stocking efforts on Lake Ontario is either trout or the useless doomed to fail Atlantic program. The only reason there are still salmon on this side of Lady O is the efforts of volunteer groups to keep a viable chinook fishery in Ontario. Hmmm swivel servants focus all of their efforts on useless fairy tales like Atlantics or the near useless Lake Trout, but actually go out of their way to shut down the premier sportfish in the province. And you want to give these goons MORE money to burn? Newsflash, the primary focus of the MNR isn't enhancing & promoting sportfishing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 Newsflash, the primary focus of the MNR isn't enhancing & promoting sportfishing. Thankfully they enhance and promote native species and ecological restoration, not just "enhancing" an introduced species utilized by a special interest group. Chronz called...he wants his selfishness back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLofchik Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 (edited) Thankfully they enhance and promote native species and ecological restoration, not just "enhancing" an introduced species utilized by a special interest group. Chronz called...he wants his selfishness back! Splake, they're native right? How many years, money & hatchery space got burned in that dead end program? Heh selfish special interest groups? You mean a small group whose only interest is advancing their narrow agenda? Are we still talking about Great Lakes fishermen or provincial bio's who've drunk the Atlantic Kool-Aid from their million dollar wine glasses? Edited October 3, 2009 by CLofchik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThisPlaceSucks Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 CLofchik, i just don't view the lakes in ontario strictly in terms of angling potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singingdog Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 Good points. How could we get more people who use resources like you do more involved in the MNR? I don't follow....why would someone want to get involved with a government ministry? Is there even a role for a private citizen? I assume you mean "get involved protecting the resources they use?" Lots of non-consumptive users are already very involved in organisations like: -local Land Trusts: these are often protecting areas of significant natural interest and habitat that MNR has passed over, or are under the radar. -"Friends" organisations of various parks and natural areas: nearly every large provincial park has a friends organisation that does everything from fund-raising to scientific monitoring -local, provincial, national and international environmental organisations: yes, I would include Ducks Unlimited here, but other well-known environmental organisations -citizen-science projects that contribute HUGE amounts of information to conservation efforts -hiking, biking, paddling and naturalists organisations that do a large amout of direct-effort projects (trail maintenance, clean-up, monitoring, habitat restoration....) These folks are not "antis". In fact, many of them are both hunters/fishers as well as pursuing other uses of the resource. If you really want to know the scope of stewardship projects that are being activly supported - with $ and time - by non-consumptive users, I can send you a list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadadude Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 Thankfully they enhance and promote native species and ecological restoration, not just "enhancing" an introduced species utilized by a special interest group. Chronz called...he wants his selfishness back! The famous MNR bull crap statement, it never changes perhaps the MNR should enhance fishing and hunting, since these are the groups paying the bills. Besides the so called special interest groups are the one's responsible for enhancing the provincial fisheries, it surely isn't the MNR, in fact there more of deterent then helpfull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishermccann Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 If they are going to die anyway, then we should enjoy them for the few weeks in the river that they have left! Dead is dead, by nature, or fisherman. If you hook something you should not ,then you would be in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twocoda Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 If they are going to die anyway, then we should enjoy them for the few weeks in the river that they have left! Dead is dead, by nature, or fisherman. If you hook something you should not ,then you would be in trouble. the problem is ....they have ONE last job to do before they die....SPAWN...and if people are illegally harvesting them off the spawn beds before this takes place then the hatcheries are no further ahead and have to continue to " put" them in to keep the cycle going ...which costs money hence the reason for " take" during derbys this is why they are called a "put and take " resource Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now