Garnet Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 I'm absolutely against banning fishing with roe. I and any number of anglers can do just as well with fly's plastic and hardware. Last week was March break were hundreds of kids were taken fishing and I don't want it any more difficult than necessary. Drop down to the creek today and you see family's show up tackle box lawn chairs, lunches they are the important ones. Bunch of steelheaders with 15ft rods $500 pin, nice vest are of no value. They have spent there $2000 and are good for life. That family they are priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brifishrgy Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 Point I'm making is why should one group of people be better then another. exactly why they should raise the limits in the rivers to 5 instead of lowering yours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigugli Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 No matter what position, or proposal the OFAH chooses to support, one corner of the room is going to be pissed off. I can see the OFAH standing back and waiting until there is a concensus. Something that is currently lacking. After all the OFAH is predomintly a political lobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chessy Posted March 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 @ a niceguy. The email comes frome zone e but says they talked to the fisheries commitee and the other comitees there for even thogh from zone e it also reflects ther ofah point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookslav Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 (edited) I can see the OFAH standing back and waiting until there is a concensus. Something that is currently lacking. After all the OFAH is predomintly a political lobby. Exactly... Its their job to represent BOTH side of this debate LOL. Not an easy situation to be in. At the end of the day their job is to keep our opportunities plentiful...and its hard to turn their back on the spoon pullers in favor the river boys when there simply is no published established proof. If there was then I could see a change of stance, but until that happens I understand their stance. Hey Nice guy, I assume your a biologist or affilated with some government body that deals with this stuff. Are you able to share any studies with us that were given to the OFAH so we can have a look? (if that does not put you in an awkward position) Cheers, Edited March 27, 2011 by Cookslav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msp Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 Im surprised that nobody has mentioned the fact that we are allowed 2 lines per angler in the big lake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aniceguy Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 (edited) cook slav there are a multitude of studies out there and a pile I have here on my pc most are hude Power point files or equally huge adobe files that would need to be hosted somewhere to post. If you spend a day or two googling specifics on rainbows you ll find most of it a vast amount is in the public domain. No Im not a biologist, nor work for any governement body, I just have a huge addiction to chromers, and my mission to to do what ever I can to expand and enlarge anyones opportunity to tangle with that majestic fish I really hoped this wouldnt turn to a pullers vs drifters debate as IMO this regulatory change has nothing to do with that. Edited March 27, 2011 by aniceguy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 well the river people seem to have by far the most concern for the fishery they seem to know the need to restrict the number of fish being caught at this time and if numbers are way down I am sure they would be happy to have the rivers closed to fishing for 5 years to help get the numbers back up that would reduce their limit by two while they can reduce the lake by 3................. then everyone is doing their part just kidding so relax.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 I dunno how some people are comparing unfertilized eggs to a living, swimming fish in the lake. The effect of taking that living, swimming fish and nailing it up to a board for a few pictures has a way bigger impact then stripping a hen for roe. If done right that hen will go back into the water and live to spawn another day. That fish you nailed to the big white board is done forever, it has zero chance to reproduce... Perhaps maybe changing the regs to only taking the smaller males with a slot in place? Who knows.. But I don't think roe anglers are the solution to the problem.. Hatchery roe is becoming more and more popular every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garnet Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 Theirs only 2 ways Ofah will support anything. 1/ They get full credit. 2/ They increase membership. And all the exacter fish up the river means nothing if the rivers remain silted in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esoxansteel Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 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. Cronzy said he was a river fishermen too, never seen him on a river and I dont recall seeing you on the river in a long time either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danc Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 The OFAH tried to pull the same crap several years ago on the newly proposed Nipigon Brook Trout regulations. They managed to delay things for a few years against the Nipigon biologists request. After the new proposals finally went through (no thanks to the OFAH), the fishery has never been better. They may claim to be the voice of Ontario fishermen, but they don't speak for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chessy Posted March 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 http://www.ontla.on....9000/249915.pdf this is older will look for a new one but something people should read. Counts of wild rainbow trout at the Ganaraska River fishway have been stable since 1998, with a slight increase in 2010. This increase is consistent with higher catches of rainbow trout in recent New York and Ontario angler surveys, and may be related to size restrictions on angler harvest of rainbow trout in New York waters of Lake Ontario and to increased predation of salmon and trout on round gobies in recent years. Condition of rainbow trout in the Ganaraska River in 2010 increased from the previous 3 years and is close to the long term average (see Section 2.1). Lamprey marks on rainbow trout continue to be a concern as they remain comparable with levels observed in the 1970s before lamprey control (see Section 2.1). this is from the fishers unit that monitor the fishway at the ganaraska river . simple stop the slaughter out in lake ontario and you will catch more fish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twocoda Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Im surprised that nobody has mentioned the fact that we are allowed 2 lines per angler in the big lake. or the fact there is no closed season on the lake (other than ice)... or the fact you can run cheaters off your rod or the fact in essence when your fishing you are fishing multiple species at same time there is no comparison to the float fisherman and the downriggers ...each is its own animal and should play by its own rules with its respective pros and cons...bottom line ...if there is concerns for the well being of the rainbow fishery then ANY step in the right direction to preserve it should be welcomed with open arms by ALL fishermen and the OFAH regardless of their methods of catching them ...the two possession limit isnt a bad thing for the open water fishermen...just means your forced to drop your cannon balls deeper and starting fighting salmon after you catch your two trout after reading what i just wrote ..i think the only comparable to the two techniques ( only for the greater good of the cause)....if they were to eliminate roe to the river floaters then they should eliminate ALL hens out of the lake possession limit ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chessy Posted March 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Ban rainbow eggs.... any rainbow fishermen knows coho eggs are far better..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishhunter Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Cronzy said he was a river fishermen too, never seen him on a river and I dont recall seeing you on the river in a long time either come more west you will find me when I'm not on the ice. I have the river in my back yard with only a few fisherman at most on it at any given time. Ganny is all yours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 come more west you will find me when I'm not on the ice. I have the river in my back yard with only a few fisherman at most on it at any given time. Ganny is all yours and you didn't call??????????...LOL:whistling: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelie hunter Posted April 22, 2011 Report Share Posted April 22, 2011 I dont think banning roe is the answer. I for one, use roe all the time, but either chinny roe, or hatchery rainbow roe. Roe can be used without having to kill a rainbow.... The OFAH did the same thing a few years ago, and then a few years ago, with a similar trout proposition. The MNR wanted a sanctuary to protect spawning trout on an unnamed creek, about 3/4km long. The fact the MNR was proposing this, you would think they would know best. As a lot of "sucker" fisherman would be in there targeting trout. The OFAH was dead against this for 2 reasons a) They didnt see the need for a sanctuary??? and it takes away a fishing opportunity and spot for people (only open season was suckers...) even though the proposed sanctuary was only 3/4km long, and the rest of the river (a good 40+ km's was still open for sucker fishing)... what stupid reasons... and this happened twice... I for one dont support the OFAH anymore. I sent my email in, hopefully the lake limit will get reduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigdritchie Posted April 22, 2011 Report Share Posted April 22, 2011 At the end of the day, what interests the OFAH is money in the bank. OFAH does a lot of good things, but they also have bills to pay. It costs a lot of money to run their organization, publish their Ontario Out Of Doors magazine, and produce their Angler & Hunter television program. Problem is, everyone knows that participation in fishing and hunting has been declining steadily for many years. It is only fair to expect that there has also been a corresponding drop in the amount of money OFAH collects in membership fees, magazine advertising and television advertising spots. Would you really expect OFAH to support any kind of bag limit reduction that could result in lower sales for its sponsors and advertisers? If OFAH does ultimately fail to support this, the message will be clear - this is an organization that cares more about protecting its advertising revenues than it does about protecting the fishery. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRT8 smoker craft Posted April 22, 2011 Report Share Posted April 22, 2011 At the end of the day, what interests the OFAH is money in the bank. If OFAH does ultimately fail to support this, the message will be clear - this is an organization that cares more about protecting its advertising revenues than it does about protecting the fishery. Simple as that. I'm pretty sure this is all OFAH cares about is keeping the bank full of $$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aniceguy Posted April 22, 2011 Report Share Posted April 22, 2011 well you know, if your an ofah member you can always write them a letter explaining your thoughts on the matter also. One of the problems with the internet these days and ( dont gut me on it) is that while its a great vehicle to post and share information it also provides one a way to vent via a post, sad thing is that the entity beig vented on rarely sees the response. We feel better but in the end nothing was accomplished. If your not happy with the OFAH decision please write them a letter call or email Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters 4601 Guthrie Drive, PO Box 2800 Peterborough, ON K9J 8L5 Contact Details: Phone: 705-748-OFAH (6324) Fax: 705-748-9577 E-Mail: [email protected] thier decision let a lot of thier partners down by not supporting thier iniatives, conservation sadly with Big brother seems a one way street 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