tonka-toy Posted March 22, 2012 Report Share Posted March 22, 2012 My neighbours don't seen to mind those fat little hen browns I keep once a year from a certain southern shore Lake O trib. I myself don't eat fish. Oldman really enjoys the little shakers I get for him from Lake E as well. My freezer is only filled with roe, nothing else Glad to hear you put them to use. Lots of guys harvest big hens for the roe only and too often these fish end up gutted on the bank in a dumpster or in a garden. You would be suprised how many guys openly admit it when asked the question I put to you earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) Glad to hear you put them to use. Lots of guys harvest big hens for the roe only and too often these fish end up gutted on the bank in a dumpster or in a garden. You would be suprised how many guys openly admit it when asked the question I put to you earlier. Agreed. I just ate one tonight - she gave me roe and a good meal, cooked in curry by a friend. I usually just give the fish up, but it came back to me that way in a tupperware container...(ooops! did I just date myself? ) - I usually don't like fish very much, but I have to admit that it was awesome cooked this way. If I can get the recipe, I'll post it here. Anyway, one thing about lake O fish is that they are not as polluted as they used to be. They've got a bad reputation that's hung around since the 60's, 70's and 80's when you could basically use the PCB's in 'em to recycle tires, and the mercury to make new thermometers. Nowadays, they are cleaner than any farm raised fish that are not "bio." So, if you're going to keep a hen - eat her too. She's yummy p.s. I should add that she was a NY stray - thin fins and a worn out dorsal fin. p.- Edited March 23, 2012 by Paulus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 but it came back to me that way in a tupperware container...(ooops! did I just date myself? ) You didn't date yourself but you certainly gave us a good indication as to which type of parties you hang out at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chessy Posted March 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 Agreed. I just ate one tonight - she gave me roe and a good meal, cooked in curry by a friend. I usually just give the fish up, but it came back to me that way in a tupperware container...(ooops! did I just date myself? ) - I usually don't like fish very much, but I have to admit that it was awesome cooked this way. If I can get the recipe, I'll post it here. Anyway, one thing about lake O fish is that they are not as polluted as they used to be. They've got a bad reputation that's hung around since the 60's, 70's and 80's when you could basically use the PCB's in 'em to recycle tires, and the mercury to make new thermometers. Nowadays, they are cleaner than any farm raised fish that are not "bio." So, if you're going to keep a hen - eat her too. She's yummy p.s. I should add that she was a NY stray - thin fins and a worn out dorsal fin. p.- Where are you getting your contaminates information ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 Where are you getting your contaminates information ... Here's one article about it... Article: Farmed fish more toxic than wild fish If you compare them to the Ontario guide to eating sport fish, you might be surprised. Google is kinda neat that way p.- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brkygetr Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 Wow... It's warm..fish go up river...buds break on trees..Morels wanna come up but there is not enough rain...guys hassel each other over stuff that we all do... Relax fellas...its going to snow again. I have kept 2 in the last 2 weeks. Why??? Cause I like eating fish and I need roe. Anyone gettin' any smelt? :wallbash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chessy Posted March 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 very nice read but it does not give you the size of fish you can eat .. in the ganny you can eat a chinook over 16 inches . not even one meal a month ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snidley Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 Proudly eating contaminated fish, "needing" roe or no angling success, the lake guys are selfish , the river guys are numerous and the story remains the same year after year. It's amazing there's any fish to catch at all. The true solution is NO roe fishing, NO keeping wild fish, Salmon /Steelhead tags that limit ANNUAL catch not daily or weekly limits roundly abused by all (Federal law mandates that roe IS considered a fish but as it is a Federal Statute the lame MNR does not enforce it). These laws would put Ontario on par with BC, the place these animals come from and where these ARE the rules. Unfortunately we are left with the bait angling and cooler stuffing crowd governed by self policing, God help us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 Proudly eating contaminated fish, "needing" roe or no angling success, the lake guys are selfish , the river guys are numerous and the story remains the same year after year. It's amazing there's any fish to catch at all. The true solution is NO roe fishing, NO keeping wild fish, Salmon /Steelhead tags that limit ANNUAL catch not daily or weekly limits roundly abused by all (Federal law mandates that roe IS considered a fish but as it is a Federal Statute the lame MNR does not enforce it). These laws would put Ontario on par with BC, the place these animals come from and where these ARE the rules. Unfortunately we are left with the bait angling and cooler stuffing crowd governed by self policing, God help us. Selective harvest and habitat improvement will do more for the fish population then anything else. I take maybe 1-2 fish a year for roe (and those are stateside stocked fish) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chessy Posted March 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 Selective harvest and habitat improvement will do more for the fish population then anything else. I take maybe 1-2 fish a year for roe (and those are stateside stocked fish) 1 or two is not bad... compared to the hundreds that come off the lake on charter boats on a daily basis in port hope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 1 or two is not bad... compared to the hundreds that come off the lake on charter boats on a daily basis in port hope Yeah, the kill boards are pretty brutal. Lake limit should be 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulus Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 1 or two is not bad... compared to the hundreds that come off the lake on charter boats on a daily basis in port hope Port Hope, Darlington, Cobourg Harbour, Whitby, Port Credit etc... ad nauseum. You're bang on. It's unbelievable the number of fish that go straight from lake to freezer without ever so much as a chance to get to the rivers. p.- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chrisrobinson Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 I can't see why OFAH would be against the 2 fish idea. If you want to take fish home then take home the "put and Take fish" like coho's and chinooks that are stocked and leave the wild ones alone to establish themselves Joseph Joseph, our response to the MNR proposal is online at: http://www.ofah.org/downloads/getfile.php?id=PDF/EBR/OFAH_submission_on_Zone_20_RBT_proposal.pdf The short version is that OFAH provincial policy is to hold MNR to basing its resource management decisions on science, and MNR couldn't provide a scientific justification for the proposed change. It would be a reduction in fishing and harvest opportunities for no appreciable benefit. The "steady decline" referred to in the proposal isn't present once you account for the lake re-setting itself in the early to mid-1990s. I'd also suggest reading NY's creel survey results for the last few years, and the recent LOMU report's rainbow trout chapter. Yours in Conservation, Chris Robinson OFAH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishindevil Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 stop bashing the charter boats cheessy !!!! its something you dont know anything about or how much money it brings in !!! go over to to the spoonpullers board and learn something !!! typical attitude rookie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 stop bashing the charter boats cheessy !!!! its something you dont know anything about or how much money it brings in !!! go over to to the spoonpullers board and learn something !!! typical attitude rookie I don't think anyone would have a problem if the charter boat guys also used selective harvest.. A little education goes a long way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishindevil Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 yes i agree and its all charter guys fault !!!??? i have been fishing tribs for 30years and have seen the roe slaughter and the bucket brigade too !!!....so dont be too quick to just blame charter guys as i have been one for many years !!! and did an article and was in ontario out of doors !!! with bob mgary about rainbows in the blue zone !!! and the importance of selective harvest !!! NOT ALL CHARTER GUYS RAPE THE BOWS !!!! GET YOUR FACTS TOGETHER BEFORE YOU ACUSE !!!!!!!!thers so much he doesnt know whatever.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin elia Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) Joseph, our response to the MNR proposal is online at: http://www.ofah.org/downloads/getfile.php?id=PDF/EBR/OFAH_submission_on_Zone_20_RBT_proposal.pdf The short version is that OFAH provincial policy is to hold MNR to basing its resource management decisions on science, and MNR couldn't provide a scientific justification for the proposed change. It would be a reduction in fishing and harvest opportunities for no appreciable benefit. The "steady decline" referred to in the proposal isn't present once you account for the lake re-setting itself in the early to mid-1990s. I'd also suggest reading NY's creel survey results for the last few years, and the recent LOMU report's rainbow trout chapter. Yours in Conservation, Chris Robinson OFAH You want scientific data to explain why a reduction in harvest limits could be good for the fishery??? Really??? Give me a break. I think it's time OFAH changed their policy. Even NY has a lower lake limit than ON, and they stock the bejesus out of their tribs. Edited March 23, 2012 by justin elia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishindevil Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 thanks justin !!! just what it says shore and stream anglers were more likely to have taken a trout than boat anglers !!!!!! right there in the report i just read it !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12footspringbok Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 Oh man we just need John from CRAA to chime in here and this thread will be complete... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin elia Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) thanks justin !!! just what it says shore and stream anglers were more likely to have taken a trout than boat anglers !!!!!! right there in the report i just read it !!!! I'm not sure why you're thanking me. I do believe that lake anglers harvest more fish based on what I see at boat launches across the north shore of lake O and in the rivers. The NY side has its own creel data to gather info from, it doesn't mean that the stream anglers that fish the north shore of Lake O are more likely to harvest a fish. With a 5 fish limit per person and no slot size, it doesn't take long for the numbers to add up from the lake. My point to OFAH was that it's not rocket science, a reduction in limits WILL increase fish numbers therefore increasing fishing opportunities and making the resource better. There are studies based on the tribs of the north shore of superior that back this up. Craig made some interesting points about BC and the rebound of the Coho from selective harvest. Edited March 23, 2012 by justin elia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 yes i agree and its all charter guys fault !!!??? i have been fishing tribs for 30years and have seen the roe slaughter and the bucket brigade too !!!....so dont be too quick to just blame charter guys as i have been one for many years !!! and did an article and was in ontario out of doors !!! with bob mgary about rainbows in the blue zone !!! and the importance of selective harvest !!! NOT ALL CHARTER GUYS RAPE THE BOWS !!!! GET YOUR FACTS TOGETHER BEFORE YOU ACUSE !!!!!!!!thers so much he doesnt know whatever.... Sounds like everyone needs education (river fisherman and the boys out in the blue zone). Bad apples in both groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chessy Posted March 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 stop bashing the charter boats cheessy !!!! its something you dont know anything about or how much money it brings in !!! go over to to the spoonpullers board and learn something !!! typical attitude rookie i don't need a education , and i only said the ganaraska river, i see hundreds of bows killed in one week compared to the number of fish killed in the same river . you need to do some reasearch before you question my motives . I have seen first hand proof of the kills in port hope i have never mentioned another river ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chessy Posted March 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 Joseph, our response to the MNR proposal is online at: http://www.ofah.org/...BT_proposal.pdf The short version is that OFAH provincial policy is to hold MNR to basing its resource management decisions on science, and MNR couldn't provide a scientific justification for the proposed change. It would be a reduction in fishing and harvest opportunities for no appreciable benefit. The "steady decline" referred to in the proposal isn't present once you account for the lake re-setting itself in the early to mid-1990s. I'd also suggest reading NY's creel survey results for the last few years, and the recent LOMU report's rainbow trout chapter. Yours in Conservation, Chris Robinson OFAH How can you start the letter like that ??? i was a member at the time and i am not in favor of that along with allot of other people that were members or are still members and as far as the LOMU reports go those are not worth the paper they are written on those reports are absolute fallacy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard S. Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 Plain and simple, OFAH only cares about what it wants and screw everyone else! Rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigdritchie Posted March 23, 2012 Report Share Posted March 23, 2012 Joseph, our response to the MNR proposal is online at: http://www.ofah.org/downloads/getfile.php?id=PDF/EBR/OFAH_submission_on_Zone_20_RBT_proposal.pdf The short version is that OFAH provincial policy is to hold MNR to basing its resource management decisions on science, and MNR couldn't provide a scientific justification for the proposed change. It would be a reduction in fishing and harvest opportunities for no appreciable benefit. The "steady decline" referred to in the proposal isn't present once you account for the lake re-setting itself in the early to mid-1990s. I'd also suggest reading NY's creel survey results for the last few years, and the recent LOMU report's rainbow trout chapter. Yours in Conservation, Chris Robinson OFAH With all due respect Chris, my opinion is that OFAH needs to shift its focus away from an emphasis on outright harvest and more toward an emphasis on creating sustainable fishing opportunities. The value of a quality fishing experience far exceeds the value of a bunch of dead trout (which my local Loblaws says is only about $3.99 a pound). People buy licenses, and tackle, and book space on charter boats, in order to enjoy a fishing experience. If the only thing that mattered was how much dead meat can be taken home at the end of the day, we would all be better off to just go to the supermarket and buy the fish we need - it would be a lot easier and far less expensive. I spent $350 to catch a bunch of coho one afternoon last month off of Vancouver Island. Know how many fish I killed? Zero. Had a great time, and would do it again in a second. When I want a salmon to eat, I'll buy a wild sockeye for $10 at the local market. OFAH's continued insistence on defining the success of a fishing experience by the number of fillets in the cooler at the end of the day is archaic thinking that's simply out of place in today's world. 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