Zone 16 Rainbow Trout Limit Question

[Jon]

I was informed the other day that the limit for rainbow trout in Zone 16 was 2 with a Sportfishing licence and 1 with a Conservation licence. I must have missed the media release on this one because I couldn't recall when it changed from 5 to 2. I checked both versions of the 2008-2009 regulations (the original one and the one that was revised in March 2009) and they both have it so I assume I missed the change when the 2008-2009 regulations came out. Since I do fish rainbows a bit, I should have checked the regs when they first came out but since I don't recall a big fanfare, either good or bad, over this one, I probably assumed there was no change.

 

Am I the only one that missed the boat on this one? Does anyone who recalls the change remember when the change was made?

 

Thanks!!

 

Jon

[wallacio]

Before 2008, Lake Huron and Georgian Bay tributaries had a 2 fish limit for some time. The limit reduction for Lake O tributaries etc happened when the 2008-2009 regs were issued (under the streamlined limit of 2 for FMZ 16).

 

IMHO, given that almost all populations of Steelhead in Ontario rely on natural reproduction a 2 fish limit is still far too high. I have no issue with keeping a fish but selective harvest should be practised. Roping a limit of fish every time one goes Steelheading has a direct and negative effect on the fishery. I would personally support a 1 fish limit with an appropriate minimum size restriction which would ensure that all fish got the opportunity to spawn at least once.

Edited November 4, 2009 by wallacio

[ironstone74]

Before 2008, Lake Huron and Georgian Bay tributaries had a 2 fish limit for some time. The limit reduction for Lake O tributaries etc happened when the 2008-2009 regs were issued (under the streamlined limit of 2 for FMZ 16).

 

IMHO, given that almost all populations of Steelhead in Ontario rely on natural reproduction a 2 fish limit is still far too high. I have no issue with keeping a fish but selective harvest should be practised. Roping a limit of fish every time one goes Steelheading has a direct and negative effect on the fishery. I would personally support a 1 fish limit with an appropriate minimum size restriction which would ensure that all fish got the opportunity to spawn at least once.

 

I agree, very well said. Let the big ones swim and spawn. I believe the "take" ratio in Ontario is too high to maintain our wild Steelhead populations.

 

Paul

[perchslayer666]

Before 2008, Lake Huron and Georgian Bay tributaries had a 2 fish limit for some time. The limit reduction for Lake O tributaries etc happened when the 2008-2009 regs were issued (under the streamlined limit of 2 for FMZ 16).

 

IMHO, given that almost all populations of Steelhead in Ontario rely on natural reproduction a 2 fish limit is still far too high. I have no issue with keeping a fish but selective harvest should be practised. Roping a limit of fish every time one goes Steelheading has a direct and negative effect on the fishery. I would personally support a 1 fish limit with an appropriate minimum size restriction which would ensure that all fish got the opportunity to spawn at least once.

 

 

 

I disagree 100% keep 2 fish and supplement the fishery with hatchery raised fish taken from the same watershed to keep the genetics where they belong. That way everyone can have a healthy limit and fisheries remain prosperous as well. Sounds simple… I know.

[fishinguypat]

yeah but if you fish with someone it would be like being able to take 4... unless your partner wasn't the one to catch the 2

[justin elia]

I disagree 100% keep 2 fish and supplement the fishery with hatchery raised fish taken from the same watershed to keep the genetics where they belong. That way everyone can have a healthy limit and fisheries remain prosperous as well. Sounds simple… I know.

 

Depends on what type of fishery you want, put and take or self sustainable. In my opinion, a self sustainable fishery with wild fish makes for a far greater fishery. There is a definate difference in hatchery raised vs. wild steelhead. Relying constantly on a stocking program is the easy way out.

[singingdog]

IMHO, given that almost all populations of Steelhead in Ontario rely on natural reproduction a 2 fish limit is still far too high.

 

Not all rainbows in Ontario are steelhead

[wallacio]

I disagree 100% keep 2 fish and supplement the fishery with hatchery raised fish taken from the same watershed to keep the genetics where they belong. That way everyone can have a healthy limit and fisheries remain prosperous as well. Sounds simple… I know.

 

There is ample evidence that stocking can have deleterious effects on existing wild populations, even when fish are taken from the same watershed.

 

A 1 fish limit with a minimum size would allow most systems to reach their carrying capacity of wild fish while still allowing for the harvest of fish and does not require time and money to maintain a stocking program.

 

That said, I personally would like to see increased stocking programs for rivers which do not support significant natural reproduction (such as the Humber etc).

[aniceguy]

Depends on what type of fishery you want, put and take or self sustainable. In my opinion, a self sustainable fishery with wild fish makes for a far greater fishery. There is a definate difference in hatchery raised vs. wild steelhead. Relying constantly on a stocking program is the easy way out.

 

I disagree 100% keep 2 fish and supplement the fishery with hatchery raised fish taken from the same watershed to keep the genetics where they belong. That way everyone can have a healthy limit and fisheries remain prosperous as well. Sounds simple… I know

 

IMHO, given that almost all populations of Steelhead in Ontario rely on natural reproduction a 2 fish limit is still far too high. I have no issue with keeping a fish but selective harvest should be practised. Roping a limit of fish every time one goes Steelheading has a direct and negative effect on the fishery. I would personally support a 1 fish limit with an appropriate minimum size restriction which would ensure that all fish got the opportunity to spawn at least once.

 

 

Ontario currently managed Rainbow Trout with an objective of creating self sustaining fish populations and as such are groosely being mis managed these days. Talking the North Shore of Ontario in particular in that the tributaries flowing into the lake are some of the most fertile streams on the face of the planet, the capacity for them to produce fish at levels no stocking program could ever compete with is a fact

Ontario needs to define its objectives beyond SPOF

 

In 1989, the Ministry of Natural Resources, in consultation with the public, designed a new Strategic Plan for Ontario Fisheries (SPOF II) for the 1990s and beyond. This consultative approach to the development of SPOF II allowed for the contribution of many diverse groups.

 

SPOF II identified the ecological, economic, and social values we place on our fisheries, and mapped out a course of action to sustain aquatic ecosystems for the future.

 

 

 

"SPOF II was formally adopted as a policy direction in June 1991.

 

 

 

The Strategic Plan for Ontario Fisheries consists of four important components:

 

goal for Ontario fisheries

objectives to meet the goal

guiding principles to form the foundation of fisheries management, and,

strategic management actions to resolve important fisheries manag

ement issues.

 

 

 

Goal for Ontario Fisheries

 

Healthy aquatic ecosystems that provide sustainable benefits, contributing to society's present and future requirements for a high-quality environment, wholesome food, employment and income, recreational activity and cultural heritage."

 

for more info have a read http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LetsF...L02_165902.html

its actually quite interesting

 

Having what I think is a fairly good cadence on rainbows in the province and in particular the N shore of Ontario. I believe that to mitigate the various opinions, and to work to create unique robust fisheries the following needs to become how steelhead are managed.

 

I firstly believe in ones right to harvest a fish for dinner, thats not to say I agree with a stringer because I dont. that being said we pay for a portion of these stocked fish we dont pay for the natural fish that reproduce without man's intervention and we need to realize that.

 

I believe that all hatchery fish should be at an expolitation ( harvest amount ) thats sustainable with current fish stocking practice, location and mumbers. I believe that streams not deemed suitable for reproduction, due to warm water plumes, poor storm water management, flow volume should be created into put take and delay fisheries where the hatchery fish are grown in lower numbers but higher return rates ( say 14inches as a minimum) raised in pen nets in these rivers allowing them to smolt there clip them for identification ( adipose only ) and then stock them in those rivers in hope they return to them creating in my opinion a US style fishery that is filled with less robust fish but higher catch rates

 

Then we segregate what we think is a wild fish ( have via the GLFC) http://www.glfc.org/ somehow agree on fish identification of hatchery fish and remove the barriers on these fertile streams allowing them access only to waters inhabitated by other naturalized fish ( brown Trout )

Introduce a limit on these same fish that is fully inline with sustainable harvest numbers ( around 15%) according to Dave Swank and finally harmonize the entire lake as one fish community not a US side and canadian side.

 

While we are at it create an additional optional $10 tag thats fish specific so that those that believe in conservation based work can donate to those very clubs and groups that steadfasty support and promote the same fish we all want to catch.

 

Summing it up additional stocking/over stocking or current harvest rates fall short of all the objectives, Ontario needs to figure out what they really want from Rainbows because currently we have only a shadow of what it really could be

[wallacio]

Not all rainbows in Ontario are steelhead

 

I'm aware of that fact and didn't make any statement in my post to that effect.

 

My comment was in reference to migratory or potamodromous Rainbow Trout, not resident stream fish or lake-locked individuals.

[BillM]

I disagree 100% keep 2 fish and supplement the fishery with hatchery raised fish taken from the same watershed to keep the genetics where they belong. That way everyone can have a healthy limit and fisheries remain prosperous as well. Sounds simple… I know.

 

If you're hungry, go hit the Zehrs fish tank.

 

I can't believe anyone in their right mind would rather be catching hatchery fish over wild fish.

 

There should definitely be a slot put into place to let the spawners do what they're supposed to do. (ie not end up on someones dinner table)

[timmeh]

Since the original question has been answered I'd like to ask another. Does anyone have any estimates of #'s of steelhead returning to rivers in the past few years vs. say 10-20 years ago. Not interested in any specific rivers just an overview. Just curious as to how the fishery has changed over the years. Has it gone the way of salmon and decreased significantly, or is there reason for optimism for the fishery?

 

Thanks.

Edited November 4, 2009 by timmeh

[perchslayer666]

If you're hungry, go hit the Zehrs fish tank.

 

I can't believe anyone in their right mind would rather be catching hatchery fish over wild fish.

 

There should definitely be a slot put into place to let the spawners do what they're supposed to do. (ie not end up on someones dinner table)

 

 

 

[capt bruce]

"If you're hungry, go hit the Zehrs fish tank."

 

Aniceguy , great post by someone who has put some thought into his post and had something to add, too bad guys like you didnt take up a carreer with the mnr, a system like you proposed is what we need , one that takes into accout ALL USER GROUPS, not just the imagined ELITE that have FORGOT why people started fishing in the first place , FOR FOOD.

 

Can't understand why people take the time to post to threads when they dont have anything to say , and cant even manage something at least funny Re: the above fish tank post ???

[aniceguy]

Cpt Bruce thanks for the kudo. Sadly I choose the path of stability and consitant food for my family and didnt choose to work for the OMNR. Those that work as field tech's biologists etc in the OMNR are doing it for the love because its most certainly not the money.

[BillM]

"If you're hungry, go hit the Zehrs fish tank."

 

Aniceguy , great post by someone who has put some thought into his post and had something to add, too bad guys like you didnt take up a carreer with the mnr, a system like you proposed is what we need , one that takes into accout ALL USER GROUPS, not just the imagined ELITE that have FORGOT why people started fishing in the first place , FOR FOOD.

 

Can't understand why people take the time to post to threads when they dont have anything to say , and cant even manage something at least funny Re: the above fish tank post ???

 

I find it funny you capitalized the word FOOD...

 

Maybe you should have also mentioned the word SPORT.

 

It's a sad day if the only reason you are out on the water is to put something on the table.

[Kinger]

It's a sad day if the only reason you are out on the water is to put something on the table.

 

I couldn't agree more.

Testify!!

[aniceguy]

hopefully this doesnt turn into a fish for food or fish for sport sort of thread. As far a Im concerned as long as harvest is in a sustainable window I see nothing wrong with the harvest of a fish for dinner. Its a healthy ( water dependant ) meal. The problem that arrises is there are very few credible fish population estimates and as such its hard to figure out whats sustainable or not.

 

I wonder if catch and release deer or turkey hunting will ever come up, bottom line at the least as an angler become educated with your quarry figure out if your adding to a supressed fish population and that being the case go to loblaws if not enjoy your meal

[Fisherman]

I couldn't agree more.

Testify!!

Maybe some folks like to eat fresh fish compared to some of those boot soles that hang around fish section of the store, just 'cause they're on ice doesn't mean they'll taste good. We have fish limits to abide by and as long as the angler is following the rules and is legal, I don't know what some of you are moaning about unless it's a bit of cheeese to accompany the whine.

[Musky or Specks]

Every Hatchery raised steelhead should be tagged and with a gross seasonal tag for hatchery raised fish similar to atlantic salmon . Tags should be individually priced say 2 or 5 bucks each to recoup some of the hatchery cost. And you can buy as many as you want up to say 10 or 15 a season. No one needs more steelehead than that. That way you when you catch a clearly tagged hatchery fish you affix a trout tag to it. And you can take home hatchery fish. Naturally produced fish are protected in this way while maintaining angler harvest opportunity.

[StoneFly]

hopefully this doesnt turn into a fish for food or fish for sport sort of thread. As far a Im concerned as long as harvest is in a sustainable window I see nothing wrong with the harvest of a fish for dinner. Its a healthy ( water dependant ) meal. The problem that arrises is there are very few credible fish population estimates and as such its hard to figure out whats sustainable or not.

 

I wonder if catch and release deer or turkey hunting will ever come up, bottom line at the least as an angler become educated with your quarry figure out if your adding to a supressed fish population and that being the case go to loblaws if not enjoy your meal

 

Funny you mention that, I was just telling my buddy the other day about using a Lassoooo for deer or even turkeys, like they do for the bulls at the Calgary Stampede. NOW, I think that would be fun and probably way more challenging. If you catch it and tie it,,..then its your option to let it go or eat it. lolol. I know it sounds Funny and kinda dumb, but I think that would be an ultimate Rush. Not sure how well it would work on Moose though...lolololol

[StoneFly]

Maybe some folks like to eat fresh fish compared to some of those boot soles that hang around fish section of the store, just 'cause they're on ice doesn't mean they'll taste good. We have fish limits to abide by and as long as the angler is following the rules and is legal, I don't know what some of you are moaning about unless it's a bit of cheeese to accompany the whine.

 

They have live tanks also. In addition, I will keep 1 or 2 small shakers per year to give to a friend who loves the treat, the rest go back.

 

A couple of points, the larger fish accumulate toxins the same way Salmon do and coming out of Lake O,..well hmmmm. If someone is literally as down and out that they need to fish or hunt for food for their family, Well Im sorry to hear it. There are however food banks and I would rather eat KD or rice than rape a fishery, what about getting a second job to raise more money instead of spending the time fishing?

 

Me personally, I feel guilty as Hell taking one small fish,...but 5 ? Make sure you eat them with ALOT of time in between portions.

Edited November 5, 2009 by StoneFly

[ehg]

Not all rainbows in Ontario are steelhead

All rainbow trout or steelhead are introduced in Ontario. There is nothing natural about them being here.

 

Usually people like going to NY or Ohio now where they are stocked and readily caught.

 

Taking only 2 fish seems fair.

[timmeh]

We have fish limits to abide by and as long as the angler is following the rules and is legal, I don't know what some of you are moaning about unless it's a bit of cheeese to accompany the whine.

 

I see what you're saying, but I think you're off a little here. Limits are not based on what is best for the fishery alone. They also take into account what anglers want and this isn't always what's best for the fishery. There's a balance here. Just because taking a limit is legal that doesn't mean it's good for the fishery. This has been proven by the simple fact that rainbow limits have had to be reduced from 5 to 2, as well as other reductions in limits and slot sizes in other fisheries. Don't get me wrong I believe everyone should be able to take a fish home here and there, but it needs to be done selectively and not just taking your limit all the time because it's legal.

 

 

Every Hatchery raised steelhead should be tagged and with a gross seasonal tag for hatchery raised fish similar to atlantic salmon . Tags should be individually priced say 2 or 5 bucks each to recoup some of the hatchery cost. And you can buy as many as you want up to say 10 or 15 a season. No one needs more steelehead than that. That way you when you catch a clearly tagged hatchery fish you affix a trout tag to it. And you can take home hatchery fish. Naturally produced fish are protected in this way while maintaining angler harvest opportunity.

 

Interesting idea. I like the fact that those who take the most would also pay the most.

[dave524]

Funny you mention that, I was just telling my buddy the other day about using a Lassoooo for deer or even turkeys, like they do for the bulls at the Calgary Stampede. NOW, I think that would be fun and probably way more challenging. If you catch it and tie it,,..then its your option to let it go or eat it. lolol. I know it sounds Funny and kinda dumb, but I think that would be an ultimate Rush. Not sure how well it would work on Moose though...lolololol

 

Lassoing a deer reminds me of this story

 

 

... Names have been removed to protect the stupid!

 

Actual Letter from someone who farms in Kansas.

 

 

I had this idea that I was going to rope a deer, put it in a stall,

feed it up on corn for a couple of weeks, then kill it and eat it. The

first step in this adventure was getting a deer. I figured that, since

they congregated at my cattle feeder and do not seem to have much fear

of me when we are there (a bold one will sometimes come right up and

sniff at the bags of feed while I am in the back of the truck not 4

feet away), it should not be difficult to rope one, get up to it and

toss a bag over its head (to calm it down) then hog tie it and

transport it home.

 

I filled the cattle feeder then hid down at the end with my rope. The

cattle, having seen the roping thing before, stayed well back. They were

not having any of it. After about 20 minutes, my deer showed up --

3 of them.

 

I picked out a likely looking one, stepped out from the end of the feeder,

and threw my rope. The deer just stood there and stared at me.

 

I wrapped the rope around my waist and twisted the end so I would have a

good hold. The deer still just stood and stared at me, but you could tell

it was mildly concerned about the whole rope situation.

 

I took a step towards it... it took a step away. I put a little tension on

the rope and received an education.

 

The first thing that I learned is that, while a deer may just stand there

looking at you funny while you rope it, they are spurred to action when

you start pulling on that rope. That deer EXPLODED.

 

The second thing I learned is that pound for pound, a deer is a LOT

stronger than a cow or a colt. A cow or a colt in that weight range I

could fight down with a rope with some dignity. A deer, no chance.

 

That thing ran and bucked and twisted and pulled. There was no controlling

it and certainly no getting close to it. As it jerked me off my feet and

started dragging me across the ground, it occurred to me that having a

deer on a rope was not nearly as good an idea as I originally imagined.

 

The only upside is that they do not have as much stamina as many animals.

 

A brief 10 minutes later, it was tired and not nearly as quick to jerk me

off my feet and drag me when I managed to get up. It took me a few minutes

to realize this, since I was mostly blinded by the blood flowing

out of the big gash in my head.

 

At that point, I had lost my taste for corn-fed venison. I just wanted to

get that devil creature off the end of that rope. I figured if I just let

it go with the rope hanging around its neck, it would likely die slow and

painfully somewhere. At the time, there was no love at all between me and

that deer. At that moment, I hated the thing, and I would venture a guess

that the feeling was mutual.

 

Despite the gash in my head and the several large knots where I had

cleverly arrested the deer's momentum by bracing my head against various

large rocks as it dragged me across the ground, I could still think

clearly enough to recognize that there was a small chance that I shared

some tiny amount of responsibility for the situation we were in, so I

didn't want the deer to have it suffer a slow death, so I managed to get

it lined back up in between my truck and the feeder - a little trap I had

set before hand... kind of like a squeeze chute. I got it to back in there

and started moving up so I could get my rope back.

 

Did you know that deer bite? They do! I never in a million years would

have thought that a deer would bite somebody, so I was very surprised when

I reached up there to grab that rope and the deer grabbed hold of

my wrist.

 

Now, when a deer bites you, it is not like being bit by a horse where they

just bite you and then let go. A deer bites you and shakes its head --

almost like a pit bull. They bite HARD and it hurts.

 

The proper thing to do when a deer bites you is probably to freeze and

draw back slowly. I tried screaming and shaking instead. My method was

ineffective. It seems like the deer was biting and shaking for several

minutes, but it was likely only several seconds. I, being smarter than a

deer (though you may be questioning that claim by now) tricked it.

 

While I kept it busy tearing the bejesus out of my right arm, I reached up

with my left hand and pulled that rope loose.

 

That was when I got my final lesson in deer behavior for the day. Deer

will strike at you with their front feet. They rear right up on their back

feet and strike right about head and shoulder level, and their hooves are

surprisingly sharp.

 

I learned a long time ago that, when an animal -- like a horse -- ;

strikes at you with their hooves and you can't get away easily, the best

thing to do is try to make a loud noise and make an aggressive move

towards the animal. This will usually cause them to back down a bit so you

can escape.

 

This was not a horse. This was a deer, so obviously, such trickery would

not work. In the course of a millisecond, I devised a different strategy.

 

I screamed like a woman and tried to turn and run.

 

The reason I had always been told NOT to try to turn and run from a horse

that paws at you is that there is a good chance that it will hit you in

the back of the head. Deer may not be so different from horses after all,

besides being twice as strong and 3 times as evil, because the second I

turned to run, it hit me right in the back of the head and knocked me

down.

 

Now, when a deer paws at you and knocks you down, it does not immediately

leave. I suspect it does not recognize that the danger has passed. What

they do instead is paw your back and jump up and down on you while you are

laying there crying like a little girl and covering your head.

 

I finally managed to crawl under the truck and the deer went away.

 

 

Sorry for the hijack, but the story is too funny not to share