kemper Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 This gets my vote - interested to see how it plays out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aniceguy Posted March 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 lots of great discussion hope everyone has had the opportunity to contact the MNR to express your opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perchslayer666 Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 I'm cool with this, go for it. Who the heck would eat a lake O fish anyways??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strakey Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 (edited) ITS ABOUT TIME.........They should do one better and have no possession limit, all c&r. Also they should start stocking the watersheds too. Go the same route as the states. Their rivers boast great numbers of bows and maybe add a few co's to the mix as well Edited March 23, 2011 by spawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 ITS ABOUT TIME.........They should do one better and have no possession limit, all c&r. Also they should start stocking the watersheds too. Go the same route as the states. Their rivers boast great numbers of bows and maybe add a few co's to the mix as well The states of full of mutant stockers, I don't think anyone wants that around here. A sustainable population of wild fish is what the goal should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiel Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 They should do one better and have no possession limit, all c&r. I would never support that nor would any of my angling friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aniceguy Posted March 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 I would never support that nor would any of my angling friends. nor would I or any that I know. What though would be need is seeing some of these rivers turn a small but productive section to floating line dry fly only......for steelhead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esoxansteel Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 This is about sustaining a dwindling fishery, with most Lake O tribs showing only one third at best the runs they use to in the mid to late 80s, This should not be about special interest groups( namely meat hunter river fisherman or charter boats who want to boost their business and their egos) This regulation is long overdue, and needs to be implemented ASAP, and should apply to all trout species in Lake Ont and all the Great Lakes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 I know nothing about this........ but if this is a change to help keep numbers up then I am for it but if stocks are fine and people are eating fish I see no reason for it .. and if they are changing the limit for control reasons, then why don't they do something about the small mouth bass in some northern lakes, they are not natural to the lakes and people admit they are pushing out the walleye and hurting walleye numbers, some lakes you can catch hundreds of small mouth a day then why not put a 50 fish a day limit on them......... and as for C&R only...I hope that never happens..water quality could drop because if we are not eating fish why look after a remote lake and if we are not eating fish then special interest groups will argue we a abusing animals for are own amusement and that's abuse...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12footspringbok Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 What though would be need is seeing some of these rivers turn a small but productive section to floating line dry fly only......for steelhead I was going to jump in and say how about a ban on roe fishing.... Just didn't want to stir the pot too much..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aniceguy Posted March 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 I was going to jump in and say how about a ban on roe fishing.... Just didn't want to stir the pot too much..... ya thats a pot stir for sure lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiel Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 nor would I or any that I know. What though would be need is seeing some of these rivers turn a small but productive section to floating line dry fly only......for steelhead I wouldn't go along with that Louis, to me that's exclusionism and reminds me too much of a certain fly shop owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 What though would be need is seeing some of these rivers turn a small but productive section to floating line dry fly only......for steelhead Now you're getting crazy, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aniceguy Posted March 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Now you're getting crazy, lol. what can i say its snowing and my snow blower broke...I might be suffering from physical exertion, something I dont think I have had for years what are the symptom's again and any treatment lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 what can i say its snowing and my snow blower broke...I might be suffering from physical exertion, something I dont think I have had for years what are the symptom's again and any treatment lol I got a nice Ariens sitting up here in my garage We only got 3-4cms at most up here lastnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowshep Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 l think the limit reduction on trout will be great for the sport. As far as the ban of roe maybe just have a few rivers as fly only (but all fly's not just the top water). l am not sure about the salmon, a lot of people make their living off of salmon charters and l just don't like taking food of their plates Its bad enough that they have to pay so much money just to run the boats with the price of fuel. l know that will be added to the price for the charter but it would just be a little harder to convince new clients to pay the money for a 2 hour charter because everyone is at their limit. l also think that they should close down a river or two for a year and close different rivers every year to get them on a rotation. This l believe would allow the trout to increase in numbers naturally as well as stocking with harvested eggs from the same river. This fishing ban is in effect in 8 northern Ontario lakes for Aurora Trout which almost became extinct. Yet the bad part of closing a river is that it will make other rivers heavily pressured. Maybe just ban the river till the eggs hatch. There now l turned up the stove and the pot is going to boil... Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aniceguy Posted March 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 Bill is still snowin here this is brutal..........hey al gore!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted March 23, 2011 Report Share Posted March 23, 2011 I wouldn't go along with that Louis, to me that's exclusionism and reminds me too much of a certain fly shop owner. Getting the limit down to 2 is a great step forward. This gives the shore anglers a similar advantage and perhaps a chance to increase the overall population back up to what should be acceptable. We will never see the populations like we did in the 80's, there have been many more fish stocked into the Great lakes and the bait fish populatoin can only sustain a certain amount as well. When was the last time you walked the shores and seen the Alwive die off after spawning like there use to be. When was the last great run of Smelt seen in any of the tribs? In my opinion, the Trout and Salmon are the only fish which you can angle for before they get a chance to spawn. Even Pike will be closed in Lake O by the first of April. To me, I find it rather ironic that you can harvest fish before they get a chance to reproduce. In my perfect world, the regulations would be like this: Tagging system - 5 tags allotted with your Sport fishing license, 1 tag for conservation license. Catch and release only from Jan 1 - 4th Sat in April. For now, a 2 fish limit is a step in the right direction. We will have to wait and see if that will improve the population. Cheers, Ron... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bacon Posted March 24, 2011 Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 This is about sustaining a dwindling fishery, with most Lake O tribs showing only one third at best the runs they use to in the mid to late 80s, This should not be about special interest groups( namely meat hunter river fisherman or charter boats who want to boost their business and their egos) This regulation is long overdue, and needs to be implemented ASAP, and should apply to all trout species in Lake Ont and all the Great Lakes I support the reduction for steelhead/rainbow; but I wouldn't support a similar reduciton for Chinook. Chinook are managed as a put and take fishery. Most of the stocking is directly into the lake or into rivers where they do not have a chance to reproduce. Stocking levels are set to keep the population as high as the bait fish population can sustain. If more fish were kept than stocking levels could be increased. I don't think think it makes much sense to prevent fishermen from harvesting Chinook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torco Posted March 24, 2011 Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 I think proposed changed from 5 to 2 and 2 to 1 is a great step. I can't understand why anyone would ever need to harvest more than 1 or 2 fish. I personally love trout but maybe harvest 1 fish per year. I think there are more complex and potentially better solutions for the long term but with them comes the need for more resources related to management and enforcement such as a tag system. If they implement such a system but do nothing to increase the number of CO's to check tags then I have a hard time believing the meat hunters/poachers would be deterred. I would also never support C&R only as I believe it to be an important aspect of recreational fishing and by having fish safe for eating you are encouraging people to improve water quality which is a benefit to both fish, wildlife and us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camillj Posted March 24, 2011 Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 (edited) ... Edited March 25, 2011 by camillj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallacio Posted March 24, 2011 Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 (edited) While it would seem that increasing stocking numbers would be a relatively easy fix to declining Lake O Salmonid populations, it's not that simple. The present biology of the lake must be considered. Today's lake is a much different plance than "The Good Old Days" on Lake Ontario of the late 70's through the 80's. Back then, baitfish numbers were at an all-time high (maily Alewife) due to the fact there were virtually no top predators prior to Salmonid stocking and the lake was unnaturally productive due to vast amounts of nutrients (Phosphorus etc) entering from sewage etc. This supported large amounts of zooplankton, which in turn fed baitfish. Since that time due to pollution controls on wastewater treatment plants, nutrient levels and zooplankton levels have declined. Zooplankton has been further reduced when Zebra Mussels were introduced in the early 90's. All of this has resulted in fewer baitfish to support top predators like Rainbows and Salmon. In response to delining baitfish levels, stocking numbers were reduced in the 90's for fear of predator demand exceeding the baitfish biomass. In short, even if we had the ways and means of stocking unlimited numbers of Rainbow and Salmon into the lake, it simply could not support it. Despite what some TV personalities say, the "good old days" are not likely to return no matter what we do. See here for more details: http://www.glfc.org/lakecom/loc/ecoswatch.pdf Edited March 24, 2011 by wallacio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camillj Posted March 24, 2011 Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 (edited) ... Edited March 25, 2011 by camillj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strakey Posted March 24, 2011 Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 I agree with you BillM but that would mean no possession limit (which im fine with) and alot of work would have to be done on the watersheds to improve them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadadude Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) Lots of good points made and I am happy to see reduced Limits. One of the biggest problems in the reduction of numbers is the degradation of the spawning rivers themselves. No matter how many fish return if the spawning sites and juvenile habitat keeps degrading the numbers will continue to drop. If we don't allow Steelhead into the headwaters to spawn and keep them out for other speceies it is unlikely the population will grow.Reducing the catch limits and perhaps putting in Catch & Release seasons all sounds good but the fish must have adequate habitat as well as access to spawning grounds if populations are to increase or sustain. Edited March 25, 2011 by canadadude 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