official response from the ofah on fmz 20

[chessy]

FMZ20

I write this letter in shock, the response from the Ontario federation of Anglers and Hunters shocked and prompts me to wonder what their mandate is. Today I received an official response on the two fish limit in lake Ontario (FMZ 20). This is a direct copy and paste "The ofah reviewed the proposal among staff and the ofah fisheries advisory committee. The ofah does not support the proposal changes, as there is not enough science/evidence to support them. This letter came from Brian Sheppard, Zone E director. How can the OFAH take this type of stance when, we limit the amount of fish taken to 2 in the river because we are aware there is an ongoing issue with declining numbers, so why then would the OFAH not support a stricter limit on the boaters fishing the same fish in the lake? I encourage each and every person that is a member of the OFAH to voice their concerns over this stance on this proposed regulation change. To contact the OFAH call or email them (Phone: 705-748-OFAH (6324) Fax: 705-748-9577 E-Mail: [email protected]) or contact Marc Desjardins at the lake Ontario management unit phone number 613 476 3287 or email at [email protected]. Thank you for your time reading this letter once again Please make your Voice heard!!!

[ADB]

FMZ20

I write this letter in shock, the response from the Ontario federation of Anglers and Hunters shocked and prompts me to wonder what their mandate is. Today I received an official response on the two fish limit in lake Ontario (FMZ 20). This is a direct copy and paste “The ofah reviewed the proposal among staff and the ofah fisheries advisory committee. The ofah does not support the proposal changes, as there is not enough science/evidence to support them. This letter came from Brian Sheppard, Zone E director. How can the OFAH take this type of stance when, we limit the amount of fish taken to 2 in the river because we are aware there is an ongoing issue with declining numbers, so why then would the OFAH not support a stricter limit on the boaters fishing the same fish in the lake? I encourage each and every person that is a member of the OFAH to voice their concerns over this stance on this proposed regulation change. To contact the OFAH call or email them (Phone: 705-748-OFAH (6324) Fax: 705-748-9577 E-Mail: [email protected]) or contact Marc Desjardins at the lake Ontario management unit phone number 613 476 3287 or email at [email protected]. Thank you for your time reading this letter once again Please make your Voice heard!!!

 

You know it's a credible organization when the don't even capitalize the initials of their own name for the sake of an "official response."

[brifishrgy]

How can the OFAH take this type of stance when, we limit the amount of fish taken to 2 in the river because we are aware there is an ongoing issue with declining numbers

 

the river is limited to 2 because they are in a confined area. If it was 5 there would be people who would take 5 from the same pool/stretch of river, plus the charter boats would be whining and moaning over lost revenue

[Pigeontroller]

Politics take precedence over conservation sometimes...You will have to decide whats more important for you.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Pigeontroller

[solopaddler]

What a joke. These people supposedly represent us and our concerns?

[bigugli]

They also represent the interests of charter boat operators and outfitters on the Great lakes.

[Twocoda]

seriously for the charter boats 2 Trout (Laker or Rainbow)and 3 Salmon is more than enough to feed any ONE individuals family...same rules apply here on Lake Huron ...the transition was fairly successful when it happened here years ago ....and the MNR actually made a few dollars in fines for those that wouldnt comply

[solopaddler]

They also represent the interests of charter boat operators and outfitters on the Great lakes.

 

Maybe so but they're a minority compared to the rest of us. More importantly the fact that they're denying the need to lower the limit, saying the science isn't there to back up the decision..that's ludicrous.

[icedude]

Politics take precedent over conservation sometimes...You will have to decide whats more important for you.

 

 

You Sir are a wise man.Clearly- not a surprising response considering from whence it came

 

 

The scientific resource's of --say an O.F.A.H. watch that Punctuation-lol in comparison to a Senses or Ecometrix Incorporated are aquatic worlds apart my friendly

 

 

Politics is another thing altogether

 

 

 

OOOPS

 

 

 

Earth Hour-I'm LATE!--DANG!---Puter OFF---B-B-Q to start---and My Shop to lite up like a Christmas Tree

 

lol

 

 

ID1

[wallacio]

Politics take precedent over conservation sometimes...You will have to decide whats more important for you.

 

Well said. The politics go beyond just charter boats etc. This lobby fears (to the point of paranoia) any push to lower limits as just another step by the "special interest groups" to take away Canadians' right to harvest fish, game etc even in the face of clear scientific data which shows it's a good thing for the long-term sustainability of the resource. Incidentally they were vocal opponents of lowering the Lake Huron Steelhead limits back in the 90's. As a result, the current 2 fish limit there was a compromise as more stringent limits were seriously being considered ie a 1 fish limit, which would have gone much further in protecting the delicate Lake Huron/GB wild Steelhead populations.

Edited March 27, 2011 by wallacio

[canadadude]

" no scientific data" of course not you can't expect to get any data on reducing the limit if the limit remains the same. Thats a Lame excuse,our neighbours to the south have reduced their limits and I'm sure the biologists down there are collecting data. OFAH has turned into joke.

[Twocoda]

there may not be any "scientific data" but there is most definatly "practical data" from Lake Huron ...the rainbows are thriving on our Lake and it is getting harder each year to find a stock fish...If they need scientific data to support their decision making then they should contact Lake Huron Fishing Club or the Steelheaders that work the ladders along our shore...lets just say...it is no longer a short gloomy day of dissapointment when lifting ..

 

 

It would be nice to see the "scientific data" that states the fisheries CAN support a 5 fish Limit

[fishhunter]

Let me ask you this, if you kept the limit the same and you cut out roe fishing in ontario how many females would live to spawn?(answer) all of them. How many fish would that save in one year? A number you would be shocked at.

See always more then one way to fix a problem. Maybe we could do both or how about we leave the season closed on the streams and extra 3 weeks so fish could spawn and make it back to the lake to spawn again. This is now 3 ways to make bigger stocks. Point I'm making is why should one group of people be better then another. Put the problem in the hands of the right people, not the ones that want to play god. You need to look at things more then just one way. I gave you 3 ways and could add another 4 or 5 with out thinking hard. This topic could go on and on but in the end they will do what they want(maybe). I have never been a lover of the O.F.A.H. but this time I'm happy they are taking a stand and asking them to put the proof on the table that this will fix the problem.

My 2 cents.

[Cookslav]

First off let me say I'm for any means of conservation that makes sense, and I personally have no issue with the regs being changed to offer a 2 catch possession limit...but that’s just me.

 

But I'd like to point out the hypocrisy in this little thread,

We had the very same argument were many people were "looking for scientific proof" to be tabled here twice in recent history.

The OFAH supported a cull on Coyotes and Cormorants despite a lack of scientific proof, yet this issue they stand on the opposite side....interesting.

But it makes sense as they are looking out for our interests as Hunters, and anglers...

Coyotes are not good for our Deer, bird, or small game hunts, and cormorants are not good for our fisheries.

Are they as detrimental to the situation as some suggest....maybe, maybe not.

But their job is to represent us as HUNTERS, and ANGLERS so this makes their position very clear.

 

Now that being said...

There are a few people involved in this thread whom also dismissed a call to culling these animals based on a lack of science.

But now they support a change to Rainbow regs with out a scientific base to stand on....mmmmm interesting is it not?

What a bunch of tough reads we are here on occasion....

 

The OFAH does a lot of good for our sports, and in this case I believe they are protecting the rights of certain fisherman(i.e. downriggin, spoon pullers)

Until the OFAH see the proof in writing they will back the current regulations, and support the opportunities we currently have...

That Angle makes sense to me "politically speaking" so I hesitate to criticise them for that decision.

 

Personally...

I'd love to see the Rainbow limit decreased, and an open season on Cormorants, and Coyotes as I "personally" think that’s a step in the right direction

But I can fully acknowledge that my opinion is not shared by all so until there is positive proof on paper the OHAH will continue to promote "opportunity"

That makes sense to me.

 

I Would just suggest the OFAH bashing be kept to a minimum thus we are making ourselves look like hypocrites...

We're all in this together brothers and sisters

Peace out,

Edited March 27, 2011 by Cookslav

[buckster]

Let me ask you this, if you kept the limit the same and you cut out roe fishing in ontario how many females would live to spawn?(answer) all of them. How many fish would that save in one year? A number you would be shocked at.

See always more then one way to fix a problem. Maybe we could do both or how about we leave the season closed on the streams and extra 3 weeks so fish could spawn and make it back to the lake to spawn again. This is now 3 ways to make bigger stocks. Point I'm making is why should one group of people be better then another. Put the problem in the hands of the right people, not the ones that want to play god. You need to look at things more then just one way. I gave you 3 ways and could add another 4 or 5 with out thinking hard. This topic could go on and on but in the end they will do what they want(maybe). I have never been a lover of the O.F.A.H. but this time I'm happy they are taking a stand and asking them to put the proof on the table that this will fix the problem.

My 2 cents.

 

I have witnessed many times charter boats coming into port credit with 4-6 people all with limits of rainbows. I think this is more of a problem than us in the rivers keeping the 1 or 2 fish a season. Its not about one group being better than the other, its about conservation. So if we cut out roe fishing the only females that would die would be the ones the lake fisherman kill? How fair is that?

[fishhunter]

I have witnessed many times charter boats coming into port credit with 4-6 people all with limits of rainbows. I think this is more of a problem than us in the rivers keeping the 1 or 2 fish a season. Its not about one group being better than the other, its about conservation. So if we cut out roe fishing the only females that would die would be the ones the lake fisherman kill? How fair is that?

Well If I as a charter boat captain am willing to take the two fish limit why are the shore fisherman not willing to stop using roe hmmmmmmmm. I would think this is not about being fair as much as it is for the better good.

Nothing is saying you cant keep females. But you and I both know 90% of females in the river are only killed for eggs. How many of the females have you killed for eggs and have eaten? Answer not needed just something people that should think about.

[timmeh]

My issue with this has nothing to do with any scientific proof. My problem is the inequality of the current regs. If you've got the money to spend on a decent boat and the equipment then you're allowed to keep more fish than guys who fish the tribs. Why should one group of anglers be allowed to keep more fish from the same population?

[fishhunter]

http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/9000/249915.pdf

 

this is older will look for a new one but something people should read.

[fishhunter]

My issue with this has nothing to do with any scientific proof. My problem is the inequality of the current regs. If you've got the money to spend on a decent boat and the equipment then you're allowed to keep more fish than guys who fish the tribs. Why should one group of anglers be allowed to keep more fish from the same population?

Here is my answer on that. I have no problem with the two fish limit. What I have a problem with is that I can tell you 1000's of rainbow trout die each year only for one purpose roe!!!! Do you not agree? This to me is nuts. Maybe its time to take the blinders off and look at the big picture here.If we are going to fix the problem fix it all at once!!!! I am a river fisherman also and have been for over 30 years and I for one would have no problem with no roe fishing in ontario waters.

[Guest ThisPlaceSucks]

Let me ask you this, if you kept the limit the same and you cut out roe fishing in ontario how many females would live to spawn?(answer) all of them. How many fish would that save in one year? A number you would be shocked at.

See always more then one way to fix a problem. Maybe we could do both or how about we leave the season closed on the streams and extra 3 weeks so fish could spawn and make it back to the lake to spawn again. This is now 3 ways to make bigger stocks. Point I'm making is why should one group of people be better then another.

 

why do none of you solutions impact charter boats? shouldn't charter anglers be treated as equals with shore/river anglers?

Edited March 27, 2011 by Dr. Salvelinus

[irishfield]

Read all Fishhunters replies again Lucas.. and you'll see he has no issues going to a 2 fish limit from his boat and is only asking everyone to consider the entire situation to sustain the population, before jumping on any one bandwagon.

 

For those that don't believe what a "PITA" Lloyd can be with his "man over board" treatment for a fish... watch this turn the volume up full and watch his concern for the (non-netted) release floater while I start turning the boat around as my f-in-law keeps it in sight (and Terry adds his usual humour)

 

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1cOMdrheD98" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Terry]

his first line was I have no problem with a 2 fish limit

 

may people should read before replying

 

oh wayne beat me to it

Edited March 27, 2011 by Papa Smurf

[Guest ThisPlaceSucks]

i read that and appreciate that he's willing to go to a 2 fish limit. he seemed to suggest river anglers should be helping the cause as well, but to my knowledge they already had the 2 fish limit, so i didn't exactly think it was fair to suggest that banning roe was a fair and equitable way to improve the fishery!

 

i don't like any kind of finger pointing, whether it's river guys blaming charters or charter guys blaming river guys, or river guys blaming flossers etc.

 

we'd be a much stronger voice to the government if we stood united as anglers.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Dr. Salvelinus

[irishfield]

Again I don't think he's pointing any fingers.. just laying out all the other possibilities that need to be considered in the grand scheme of things. Of course I have the advantage of many hours of conversation with Lloyd, on the water, road, air, to know that's what he's getting at. Whether it conveys in the way he types or not is another thing...

[aniceguy]

I see the response is from a zone not specifically from OFAH directly.

There is a vast body of scientific proof supporting a 2 fish reduction, in fact there is even a larger body of proof supporting a 1 fish with a slot and there is no doubt OFAH is aware of it, as its been presented right to them directly, by ME!!!!!

 

Regardless I would like to see scientific proof that the status quo is what should be done. When Ontario chooses to abandon SPOF and it's biodiversity sustainability approach to managing its resource then we can return to some archaic method of stock till you drop, but until then avenue’s need to be put in place to supports the MNR's methodology on managing recreational fisheries in the province, and this is a good first step

Not to play devil’s advocate, but while they aren’t supportive of a 5 to 2 is the OFAF supportive of more aggressive change, that’s the real question you should be asking them, potentially some of you should call them direct to gain clarification on this.