Rice Lake panfishTourist Ass. at it again!

[Michael_Brown]

Surely, there is a happy medium somewhere.

 

I thought we had with a 300/30 limit. I am perfectly comfortable accepting the limits and regulation changes as they are. I will however stand firm on recreational anglers rights and the protection of the resource.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Michael Brown

[FishinNanna]

What do you mean by the recreational anglers rights and the protection of the resource .. please explain. I get the feeling that most people want to protect the resource but that you seem to be at odds on HOW to protect .. am I correct? Sorry if I am confused by this, but I truly feel you all have the same interest at heart but are coming at it from different angles and merely arguing the angle.

 

Nanna

[northshore]

the limits are good - sunfish, bass, walleye or whatever - stop the greed - Rice lake has been rapped for years and i'm happy she's finally being treated with some respect - although I don't completely agree with the winter fishery - that's a whole nother can of worms - the sunfish limit is important - all fish are important to the health of a lake - not just the predators - a lake is a balance of all the fish species - and if you overharvest one species - you effect the populations of all of them - today's anglers with all the gear, maps, gps, sonar etc can effectively make a species go extinct in a lake - not that the sunfish will go extinct on Rice - but harvesting all the 'fat' ones 1000 at a time - will weaken the population - since the big ones ie.more successful healthy ones are gone - only the dinks will spawn and you will end up with a population of genetically inferiour dinks. The science has been done, the studies complete and the limits are imposed in the best interest of the fish stocks - Yes the meat hunters are unhappy - but the fish are for all to enjoy, both present and future - fishing is not about how many fish you can catch, kill and eat - it's about the past time - the enjoyment of the outdoors - the thrill of the chase and the good times with friends. Stop whinning about the loss of business from the meat hunters, cuz when the fish are gone - they will be too - target the real anglers, families and avid outdoors people - they will come back, again and again.. i do.. every year - rent and fish and enjoy..

Edited March 3, 2010 by northshore

[bigfish1965]

What do you mean by the recreational anglers rights and the protection of the resource .. please explain. I get the feeling that most people want to protect the resource but that you seem to be at odds on HOW to protect .. am I correct? Sorry if I am confused by this, but I truly feel you all have the same interest at heart but are coming at it from different angles and merely arguing the angle.

 

Nanna

 

Pretty simple...

Anglers, by and large, trust the MNR when they say their studies show that certain limits, seasons and restrictions are needed to sustain a fishery. We have seen the success of their conclusions and have a fairly high degree of respect for these plans.

It took a long time for us to see that value of releasing bigger fish and keeping smaller ones..but it works.

 

There is much doubt about the resort operators objectives since their chief concern and complaint is about a potential loss of revenue.

 

Commercial interests have often (and I am not saying this is the case here) less long term concerns than do private citizens. (see East Coast Cod Fishery)

[FishinNanna]

Well I must agree that a limit is fine. I also must agree that I am not in favour of the winter fishery .. to me it goes against the limits .. they equal a net result.

 

Now, in all my reading, I don't quite agree with you that the resort operators are the problem. I'm sure they have had guests over the years that were glutanous, yes. But not every one is. And there are many catch and release people who again help to balance the scale against those who take more than their fair share. Again, we can't paint them all with the same brush .. agreed?? Perhaps there are a few resorts that operate as you say .. but there are also many that do not. I know a few people in this business and I know how hard they work and for very little money .. that doesnt seem like lining their pockets to me. The ones I know have their hearts and souls in their business and the last thing they want is for the fish population to be in peril .. it's their livelihood for goodness sakes .. can't you see that? They have invested their entire lives in this and they want a good outcome.

 

I don't mean to argue .. I just think that you really must look just a litle further to find the real truth. Not all black and white, my dear.

 

Thank you for allowing me to speak my mind .. and for listeneing and for answering my questions. Educating ourselves is the key .. sharing knowledge helps us all to learn .. and we never stop learning.

 

Nanna

[bigfish1965]

Well I must agree that a limit is fine. I also must agree that I am not in favour of the winter fishery .. to me it goes against the limits .. they equal a net result.

 

Now, in all my reading, I don't quite agree with you that the resort operators are the problem. I'm sure they have had guests over the years that were glutanous, yes. But not every one is. And there are many catch and release people who again help to balance the scale against those who take more than their fair share. Again, we can't paint them all with the same brush .. agreed?? Perhaps there are a few resorts that operate as you say .. but there are also many that do not. I know a few people in this business and I know how hard they work and for very little money .. that doesnt seem like lining their pockets to me. The ones I know have their hearts and souls in their business and the last thing they want is for the fish population to be in peril .. it's their livelihood for goodness sakes .. can't you see that? They have invested their entire lives in this and they want a good outcome.

 

I don't mean to argue .. I just think that you really must look just a litle further to find the real truth. Not all black and white, my dear.

 

Thank you for allowing me to speak my mind .. and for listeneing and for answering my questions. Educating ourselves is the key .. sharing knowledge helps us all to learn .. and we never stop learning.

 

Nanna

 

But, Nanna, it is the limit the operators want removed. They want wide open no-limit fishing. the MNR has said that opening the lake to ice fishing would mean a limit of 300 fish. This would, I suppose, make the overall yearly take about what it was when it was a soft water only fishery.

They already have the added benefit of now offering year round fishing, so I fail to see the resistance to a limit as anything sensible.

The MNR does creel census data each year. They have a rough idea on what percentage of anglers take what. They know X% will take none while Y% will take 100. Using this they can try and set numbers which do not assume everyone will do it, but that some will take a full limit and some will take none.

[FishinNanna]

Are you positive about this, Rick? Because that is not my understanding at all. From what I can gleen (keeping my ear to the ground, so to speak) the ones that I have listened to do not mind a limit but don't understand the limit being not what it was originally supposed to be, and then on the other hand opening the winter fishery. Quite honestly, having raised more than my fair share of children and now the grands, winter time is not the optimum time to show them the joys of fishing. Their little feet get cold no matter what .. and then the boredom sets in. And that's no fun. For anyone. It seems that the winter fishery is more the problem here. Only the local fells and gals are the ones that will make use of it. And some may abuse it, as well. I don't know but I still think some things should just be let alone. Let the poor old lady (lake) have a rest .. she's tired, like me.

 

Nanna

[kerr]

just been reading this post for awhile now, and cant really understand what all the fuss is over these bluegills.if the limit is 300 then so be it i can not imagine cleaning that many anyway. personally i dont like the new panfish quota because i find it could be a little confusing for people and left open to interpretation ie: 7+ inches for 30, 270 under 7 which is a lot of fish to keep track of and could easily be messed up by an angler. i am glad that i am not a bluegiller because of this. because of rice lake's proximity to Toronto and being a kawartha area lake with lots of tourism, it does get pummelled non stop which i have seen get worse and worse year after year so i am sure there is a good reason for said limits. i think people sometimes jump the gun when there are changes without giving them a chance to take shape. give it time, THEY ARE BLUEGILLS THEY WILL SURVIVE BABY!

[bigfish1965]

Are you positive about this, Rick? Because that is not my understanding at all. From what I can gleen (keeping my ear to the ground, so to speak) the ones that I have listened to do not mind a limit but don't understand the limit being not what it was originally supposed to be, and then on the other hand opening the winter fishery. Quite honestly, having raised more than my fair share of children and now the grands, winter time is not the optimum time to show them the joys of fishing. Their little feet get cold no matter what .. and then the boredom sets in. And that's no fun. For anyone. It seems that the winter fishery is more the problem here. Only the local fells and gals are the ones that will make use of it. And some may abuse it, as well. I don't know but I still think some things should just be let alone. Let the poor old lady (lake) have a rest .. she's tired, like me.

 

Nanna

 

Here is a bit of the original newspaper story....bolded text added for emphasis...

NORTHUMBERLAND -- The impact of ice fishing on Rice Lake is to be debated at the next county council meeting March 3. A notice of motion about new provincial Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) fishing limits has set the scene for the debate.

 

"There is concern about the (panfishing) cutback," Alnwick/Haldimand Township Mayor Bill Finley said. " There is the (potential) of lost tourism revenue."

 

fctAdTag("bigbox",MyGenericTagVar,1);Finley was referring to the first-time limit on panfishing, small fish sought by Americans and fished by the hundreds and thousands when U.S. visitors vacation at Rice Lake resorts during the summer. Lakeside businesses are already feeling the impact on the upcoming tourist season, Finley suggested. The Rice Lake Tourist Association is also opposed to the "sunfish" (bluegill and pumpkinseed) limits for the same reason.

 

Letters from Association president Maureen Brough have been sent to county council and area municipalities stating that, while the group conditionally supported the decision to introduce ice fishing to Rice Lake this year, it "disagrees with the MNR on the introduction of sunfish limits on Rice Lake."

 

During the Zone 17 advisory council meetings before the Jan. 1 change, no information ever suggested that "sustain-ability of the sunfish population" required limits, Brough wrote.

 

"The imposition of sunfish limits has negatively impacted businesses on and around Rice Lake with many resorts receiving cancellations for the upcoming season," she states.

 

Brough writes that during the meetings, no info on sunfish limits were suggested, however those in attendance refute her statement saying it was quite well covered.

[BillM]

Wait, people canceled vacations because a sunfish limit was imposed?

 

Riiiiight.

 

Are we sure it just wasn't because the economy was in a complete downward spiral and people couldn't afford a summer vacation?

[islander]

Hi,

I'm new here.

 

I have lived and worked on Rice Lake for decades now and have read these posts with interest.

 

Some things I've noticed...

 

Since when is the MNR all-knowing and considerate of tourism, basing their regulations on pure science - Spring bear hunt?

 

There NEVER EVER were any limits for panfish on Rice Lake before January 1st 2010 and from what I have learned the populations of these fish in our lake are among the largest and healthiest anywhere - I have always been able to catch bluegill > 8" which is a good size.

 

I have seen LESS fishermen on the lake in the past few years and the local businesses are quieter than they used to be, some places have closed and others are barely hanging on.

 

Do the bluegill on Rice Lake need protection NOW before they are wiped out? They did just fine when there was lots of fishermen, why now?

 

Do the small businesses that cater to fishermen need protection from Big Brother (MNR) and homespun conservationalists trying to protect fish that don't NEED protection?

 

It seems that way to me.

 

Have fun out there!

 

Islander

[FishinNanna]

Let me start today by saying that I agree with you, Islander .. whole heartedly on all points!!!

 

Secondly .. I've been a busy Nanna over the last day or so .. I've called everyone I know on and around the lake, resort opertors and private individuals and I've read everything I can get my paws on .. and I think there is a rather large misunderstanding here.

 

Seems that some things have been taken out of context (that were in print) and some things have been printed incorrectly and / or, again, out of context to what was truly said. Well, this could sure ignite a fire, now couldnt it!!

 

So here it is .. in brief and in black and white from an old lady that's been around the block a time or two.

 

This group (council) that was put in place to investigate what should happen with the regulations voted on and recommended a sunfish limit of 500. This was a majority vote. Biologists agreed that there was "no problem with quanity of fish, but sizes were down". The resort group feels that 500 is the number that should be in place, as it was voted on and recommended .. they ARE NOT trying to revert to the old regs of no limits!!

 

The other question that I hear, if fish are in jeopardy (in any way) and limits are imposed to save them, then how can you open them up to a 12 month season from what was an approx 6 month season ... these two thoughts are in contradiction to each other and make no sense.

 

Like Islander, I know that there are far less fishermen out there .. I do the kitchen window test .. I look out and I see .. less and less over the past 6 yrs or so. Being one who frequents our local casino, I enjoy numbers .... more fishermen catch more fish ... less fishermen catch less fish. Pretty simple math. And I know that I've been catching more and bigger fish year upon year for the last 5 - 6 years.

 

So .. what on earth is the problem?????

[troutologist]

Let me start today by saying that I agree with you, Islander .. whole heartedly on all points!!!

 

Secondly .. I've been a busy Nanna over the last day or so .. I've called everyone I know on and around the lake, resort opertors and private individuals and I've read everything I can get my paws on .. and I think there is a rather large misunderstanding here.

 

Seems that some things have been taken out of context (that were in print) and some things have been printed incorrectly and / or, again, out of context to what was truly said. Well, this could sure ignite a fire, now couldnt it!!

 

So here it is .. in brief and in black and white from an old lady that's been around the block a time or two.

 

This group (council) that was put in place to investigate what should happen with the regulations voted on and recommended a sunfish limit of 500. This was a majority vote. Biologists agreed that there was "no problem with quanity of fish, but sizes were down". The resort group feels that 500 is the number that should be in place, as it was voted on and recommended .. they ARE NOT trying to revert to the old regs of no limits!!

 

On what basis does the resort group feel this is a prudent number?

 

The other question that I hear, if fish are in jeopardy (in any way) and limits are imposed to save them, then how can you open them up to a 12 month season from what was an approx 6 month season ... these two thoughts are in contradiction to each other and make no sense.

 

Its all about removal of fish, if a newly inposed limit of 300 is put in, MNR expects that less fish than previously will be harvested in the open water season. Thus with a limit and a new icefishing season they opine that the total removal from the system will be at a LONG TERM sustainable level. So now after a winter creel census following a year or 2 of a new icefishing season, MNR will have to take a look at removals and set a limit call it total allowable harvest or potential biological removal anyways there is rigourous statistics and peer review that occurs here.

 

Like Islander, I know that there are far less fishermen out there .. I do the kitchen window test .. I look out and I see .. less and less over the past 6 yrs or so. Being one who frequents our local casino, I enjoy numbers .... more fishermen catch more fish ... less fishermen catch less fish. Pretty simple math. And I know that I've been catching more and bigger fish year upon year for the last 5 - 6 years.

 

The kitchen window test and anecdotal evidence that you are experiencing better fishing recently, are not means to base a fisheries management strategy on. What if the folks across the lake are catching fewer because of a contruction project or any number of factors? Again the Govt is attempting to manage these systems with the long term health in mind, for ALL users of the crown resources not a particular group

 

So .. what on earth is the problem?????

[FishinNanna]

Not sure how to do the fancy quoting that you do .... the 500 was the number that the MNF and OFAH and biologists and fishing clubs and stakeholders came up with in a majority vote. The 300 is a number that was pulled out of nowhere.

 

Trout .. you are in Winnipeg .. how much do you know about our area?

 

I think kitchen window tests and anecdotal evidence weight alot heavier than you think ... speak to Elders, on and off First Nations Reservations .. what I mean by that is truly, speak to your elders, those who've been walking the earth alot longer and have watched what has been happening over time. Many times, they are far wiser than the wisecrackers who make up our government and our laws. Big brother is all about the money .. the individuals are the ones who truly care!

[solopaddler]

I feel compelled to offer a rebuttal to FishinNana but can't.

Who 's gonna argue with someone's Nanna?

[troutologist]

True I do live in Winnipeg, however have lived in S Ontario for a number of years, but to understand the issue I need know nothing of Rice Lake. This same scene is mimiced across the country when armchair scientists decide they know how to better manage things than Big Brother.

 

Now you introduce the topic of traditional ecological knowlegdge or local ecological knowledge, yes this does hold alot of weight in how governemnt scientists approach an issue. But TEK/LEK should be treated similar to peer review in science documents, where is the info coming from? Can it be corraborated? Granted this information is extremely valuable and useful, still management decisions cannot be placed soley on this. I understand this issue very well as I work with it daily.

 

I take it you have a vested interest in this issue?

 

If Big Brother is all about money, why would they add another limit to enforce, why add more season to enfore? Why use this limit to reduce tourism and miss out on all the license fees etc?

[Rice Laker]

Last night Michael Brown wrote "You must think if we stopped all fishing for bluegill in Rice Lake that they would start overflowing the banks. If we did not harvest a single fish from Rice, guess what the populations will find a sustainable level and balance"

No, I don't agree with the first sentence and fully agree with the second. However, the big question is when that level and balance will be reached. Many people that actually live on the lake have seen in the last 2 years bluegills spawning in areas that have never spawned in before. They are expanding and Rice Lake is a huge lake. In a straight line, one end to the the other is about 36Km, so 72 Km for both sides, add 50% for all the bays and points and you have shoreline of over 100Kms. Add in the many islands that also have ideal spawning grounds and you have even more Kms. Rice Lake is unique, definitely different to the other Kawartha lakes, shalllow and very eutrophic. If there is only so much food to go around and there are more and more bluegills, guess what, they will be stunted. Exactly the situation we have now, not enough big ones.

 

Michael also wrote "the problem is that any child fishing off their dock who caught a sunfish larger than 7 inches would be breaking the law. These fish are responsible for helping to recruite new anglers that the entire industry/sport needs. This would have been unacceptable" I agree, but as I mentioned in an earlier posting you are putting bluegills in a second tier of fish. Would you make the same comment about walleye or muskie? Should not all species be treated with the same respect? Measuring is not difficult, buy a 1"X2", cut off 7" and you can use the rest to make walleye measuring sticks......

 

Personally, I would have thought that having the kids measure bluegills would be a good introduction to explaining why size limits are necessary and important. Then when they "graduate" to walleye, muskie and other species with a size limit they are more likely to understand the reasoning and respect it.

 

One final comment, the newspaper article that started this whole thread was incorrect. We do not want to go back to "No Limits", we would like what the FMZ 17 Council recommended, 500 with none over 7"

[crappieperchhunter]

Honestly 300 or 500. Makes no difference to me. I fish gills quite a bit throughout the summer, cause I just plain enjoy it. I probably only keep 25-40 gills in a whole season, so my impact is virtually nothing.I do however support the new regulations. My concern is the fishery,period.

 

It all comes down to personal ethics. I have been to way too many resorts where there are slot sizes for walleye and pike. And guess what? When you go to the fish cleaning hut most of the carcasses left in the cleaning pail are NOT in the slot size. Do theses resorts try to figure out who was the culprit and not have them come back? I would hope some do...but I would put my $$$ on betting most don't.

 

Personally I can't comprehend the greed/feeling of entitlement necessary to keep 300, so 500 is beyond ridiculous to me.

[solopaddler]

I'll say this, 300, 500 what difference does it make?

Regardless of whether they're lowly panfish I can't wrap my head around such ridiculously large limits.

Who for the love of God needs that many panfish?

 

The answer is no one. Unless of course you're subsidizing your trip by selling fish.

 

I don't care if the ecosystem is actually enhanced by such large scale removal of panfish.

Bottom line it's wrong.

[Dara]

500 fish?

 

Its called sportfishing...not substinance fishing.

[FishinNanna]

Couple or three years ago, I was working at one of these resorts. Some of the guests had walleye over the size limit. Owner called MNR .. this was early in the week, when the folks would be there for a number of days yet .. and nobody ever came. When the owner called again asking if and when a CO would come out .. answer was .. he's on holiday this week. I was there .. saw it and heard it folks .. sad to say but 100% true.

 

This is why I say you cannot paint them all with the same brush.

 

And by the way .. that number of 500 was decided by a bunch of bioligists and scientists and mnr people and ofah ..!!!!!

[FishinNanna]

And Dara ... if these folks take home a few hundred fish .. it's enough for a fish fry for a family. You'd be surprised how many one person can eat .. probably 3 - 6 fish per sitting per person, at least. Do the math. And are they taking them away from YOU and YOUR family .. hmm .. probably not. If you're Canadian, you probably don't want them anyway ....

[JohnF]

And Dara ... if these folks take home a few hundred fish .. it's enough for a fish fry for a family.

 

That's a family of 40 or so. Would that the fish were such prolific breeders.

 

JF

[tightline]

Not sure when 300 fish in the freezer became not enough for ANYBODY!! Fishnana welcome to the board I like your spunk...from a women who never really gets involved in this kinda thing your IN full blast!! This is one of the best posts I have read on this site. Actually hearing it from all sides is refreshing...Sounds to me like 300's a pretty respectable number...never fished Rice so not to sure about it...really comes down to people want what they want and they all want money...I see the MNR taking a hit buy loss of out of country licenses...which by the sounds of it in your location must be substantial...I can see about the same hit to the towns people, my question is if the towns people say that the majority of the people do NOT take home anywhere near there limits, then wheres the problem...From what I understand is they just opened up to ice fishing which gave you the opportunity to be open 5 more months of the year???? Not a good deal??? Anyway can't wait to see how this one plays out...peaked my interests now

[islander]

Those thousands of local anglers out there enjoying themselves this winter on Rice Lake, besides adding lots of dollars into the local economy during a slow period, are potential clients or at least a glimpse of the potential.

After reading this thread again I had to comment on this one...

 

Ice fishing on Rice Lake was a huge success this winter, at least what I saw. Families were out there enjoying the fun and they caught some nice perch too. The crappie were harder to come by but some fishermen caught a few good sized ones at night. I heard of more than one ice-hut being moved because all they could catch were walleye, and one of my neighbours caught a 33" walleye last weekend, he thought it was a carp at first!

 

Best of all when the season ended on Monday all the ice-huts on my part of the lake and over to Bewdley were gone, way to go!

 

But... Thousands of fishermen Michael? Not this year, dozens maybe, but no thousands.

 

However - if there was a winter walleye fishery...

 

Have fun out there!

 

Islander