No Kill

[kemper]

I enjoy eating fish as much as the next guy, no question. I had a wicked Atlantic salmon fillet for dinner tonight, usually eat fish 3x per week.

 

That said, it's almost always store bought and sustainably farmed. I did some consulting type work in the aquaculture industry so I have the benefit of knowing most of the operations in the province, but for the most part Ontario does a pretty decent job.

 

Here's my question -

 

If it came down to a vote, would you support a no-kill on your favourite species?

 

What about a partial no-kill? Lake/river rotations? Tag systems (annual limits)?

 

I'm leaving panfish out of this one, let's talk musky, bass, trout, salmon etc.

 

I can honestly say that I would back a no-kill 100% on every species I fish, but I suspect that I'm in the minority. A more reasonable option might be an annual tag system, where you can take your limit (say, 10?) on a single day, or over the course of the entire year as you please provided you have the "tags" for the fish.

 

I haven't thought out the logistics here, so don't jump on me for that one.

 

Just a thought. The over-harvest that I've seen this year is worse than ever, and to be honest is sickening.

 

Cheers,

[Joeytier]

I would support it in areas where it most needed, yes.

[Live2fish85]

I don't agree and I rarely keep fish other then perch.

[irishfield]

We need a 54" or better to "Kill" on GBay when it comes to Muskie as it is. That said, those that think they "swam away for another day" need to take a better look in the mirror most days anyhow. Many days I just think it would be better to catch your limit on what ever you're fishing, call it a day and bring them home. Doing so would = less dead fish in the system!

[HyperActive]

I used to fish and hike with the same buddy in Ontario and B.C. In my opinion he had no regard for nature of any sort. He almost killed us both twice no less!!!

 

 

I think because of him I always carry a garbage bag with me and he has helped turn me into a catch and releaser only.

 

He was/is a pretty good guy but seriously lacked common sense when dealing with mother nature.

 

I can imagine and have seen the negative effects he left behind, I can only imagine the effects a small minority of fishermen have on some species.

 

I would back a no kill movement,

Edited October 29, 2012 by HyperActive

[kemper]

We need a 54" or better to "Kill" on GBay when it comes to Muskie as it is. That said, those that think they "swam away for another day" need to take a better look in the mirror most days anyhow. Many days I just think it would be better to catch your limit on what ever you're fishing, call it a day and bring them home. Doing so would = less dead fish in the system!

 

 

A good point - I've watched countless Muskies dragged in to the dock to be shown off to friends and then "released". Might as well have bbq'ed that fish because it's toast anyway...

[Acountdeleted]

I would agree. I could pass on taking walleye home if everyone (or most people) were playing by the rules.

 

As long as I get to keep a few perch and Crappie I'd still be happy.

[bigugli]

To say "no kill" is the same as banning fishing for a species. There is no possible way for one to guarantee a released fish survives the stress and exhaustion from the fight.

[irishfield]

To say "no kill" is the same as banning fishing for a species. There is no possible way for one to guarantee a released fish survives the stress and exhaustion from the fight.

 

Edzakery and what my point was... anyone that thinks otherwise go join P3TA now and just shut us fisher folks down for ever!

[ChrisK]

Although it might be good for fish populations it would definitely infringe on the rights of fisherman to keep there possession limits so I would say no.

It kinda reminds me of that useless gun registration law they just got rid of. All it did was make life difficult for all of us law abiding gun owners instead of going after the crooks that use guns to commit crime.

If you want to see poachers behind bars then that's who you have to go after.

[Twocoda]

i wouldnt support a no kill unless the species was over culled and require it to be....i would be a strong supporter of a tag system and more stringent sanctuaries though eg. 2 feet or less...no fishing regardless if it outside an already existing sanctuary

[fishdawg]

NO

[BillM]

Already a no-kill section in my home river, more rivers up this way need it.

Edited October 29, 2012 by BillM

[jerdog]

Bigugli has it bang on. The only no kill is no fishing. It's a big range but the average reported here (MNR C&R guidelines) suggests 16% of fish released die. If you catch and release 25 walleye you have the same impact as a guy that keeps a limit and quits.

[kickingfrog]

I guess I would ask what is the purpose of a catch and release only? Is to protect a particular species? Or a particular species and/or a body of water?

 

If taking some fish, however restricted, harms the fishery then more is likely need then just a no keep regulation.

 

Another potential problem is that some anglers will just go somewhere else and put more pressure on another body of water.

[kemper]

To say "no kill" is the same as banning fishing for a species. There is no possible way for one to guarantee a released fish survives the stress and exhaustion from the fight.

 

I disagree, it simply means you aren't allowed to intentionally kill the fish for consumption. No-kill sections of certain water bodies have been successful in Ontario, and there are many examples on the West coast as well.

 

Do some fish die? Inevitably yes, but a released fish has a much better chance at survival than one on a rope...

 

By that logic I have to stop fishing after I have a limit because catch and release isn't possible?

 

 

Edzakery and what my point was... anyone that thinks otherwise go join P3TA now and just shut us fisher folks down for ever!

 

Trust me, the last thing I want to do is give P3TA any credit. I've spent 15 days on the water since October 1 and caught/released a whole trolley of fish, if I wasn't able to fish I'd be in the loonie bin by now...

 

 

Although it might be good for fish populations it would definitely infringe on the rights of fisherman to keep there possession limits so I would say no.

It kinda reminds me of that useless gun registration law they just got rid of. All it did was make life difficult for all of us law abiding gun owners instead of going after the crooks that use guns to commit crime.

If you want to see poachers behind bars then that's what you have to go after.

 

Straightforward point, taken and respected.

Edited October 29, 2012 by kemper

[kickingfrog]

Bigugli has it bang on. The only no kill is no fishing. It's a big range but the average reported here (MNR C&R guidelines) suggests 16% of fish released die. If you catch and release 25 walleye you have the same impact as a guy that keeps a limit and quits.

 

The ability of fish to survive varies so much from species to species, time of year, gear used, depth of water and skill of the angler that it is difficult to put a catch all percent to it. And other studies have shown that the numbers are lower then what was once believed do to angler education and experience.

 

Twenty five years ago how common was it for anglers to release many/most of their fish?

[Freshtrax]

I like the tag idea. I dunno max 50 sport fish, 500 pan fish/perch . Most fisherman would not take their fifty a year. But it would cut down on the people who take 1000's a year.

[jerdog]

Here's the section of the report where the 16% came from:

 

"The impact of mortality caused by catch-and-release practices is often underestimated by both anglers and fishery managers. From a review of 118 catch-and-release studies (Appendix 1), which, in total, involved over 120,000 fish, the average mortality associated with catch-and-release angling was 16.2%. Thus, while many anglers may assume that by practising catch-and-release they are having no impact on the fish population, a significant number of released fish may die."

[hammercarp]

No. There is something wrong with the idea of not being able to eat the things that grow here.

I have a great idea though. More people should fish for carp. This would help take the pressure of other species. This is especially true in S. Ontario's more densely populated areas. Carp are a tough fish and can handle C&R if handled with a little care. Our carp angling group has pictures of carp caught multiple times over a many year period. I am serious about this. It is part of the reason I took up carp angling and chose to help promote the sport.

[BillM]

Here's the section of the report where the 16% came from:

 

"The impact of mortality caused by catch-and-release practices is often underestimated by both anglers and fishery managers. From a review of 118 catch-and-release studies (Appendix 1), which, in total, involved over 120,000 fish, the average mortality associated with catch-and-release angling was 16.2%. Thus, while many anglers may assume that by practising catch-and-release they are having no impact on the fish population, a significant number of released fish may die."

 

There's been a big swing in C&R techniques in the past few years. That report was done when? 2005?

[northernpike56]

No. I like keeping fish, if it's bass, walleye, perch, crappie, trout, or even pike on a particular day. That said, I think that it was a pretty good idea to introduce no-kill regs on some very well known trout streams in S. Ontario. Combine that with stocking, and you have a pretty neat fishery that wouldn't happen if these things were not put into place.

 

I think it would be cool with most people if the size limits were raised higher for muskie, but I can't really say anything too much more about that species because I am not a muskie angler, and really know nothing about the fish.

 

Basically, I think if everybody followed their limits, and was a 'conservative' angler at most times, we should have no problem with our fisheries (large waterbodies I'm speaking of). I also love the idea of stocking a bunch of fish in the more well-populated areas in S. Ontario that really couldn't handle as much fishing pressure that they get if they were just wild fish. I can think of 1 huge example of a success by stocking (Lake O!!)

 

Matt.

[kemper]

No. I like keeping fish, if it's bass, walleye, perch, crappie, trout, or even pike on a particular day. That said, I think that it was a pretty good idea to introduce no-kill regs on some very well known trout streams in S. Ontario. Combine that with stocking, and you have a pretty neat fishery that wouldn't happen if these things were not put into place.

 

I think it would be cool with most people if the size limits were raised higher for muskie, but I can't really say anything too much more about that species because I am not a muskie angler, and really know nothing about the fish.

 

Basically, I think if everybody followed their limits, and was a 'conservative' angler at most times, we should have no problem with our fisheries (large waterbodies I'm speaking of). I also love the idea of stocking a bunch of fish in the more well-populated areas in S. Ontario that really couldn't handle as much fishing pressure that they get if they were just wild fish. I can think of 1 huge example of a success by stocking (Lake O!!)

 

Matt.

 

I think the stocking thing goes both ways. Certainly can increase the population and if done right genetic diversity and "wild strain" can be kept in tact, but it also seems to make people think its OK to kill everything you catch.

[kickingfrog]

There's been a big swing in C&R techniques in the past few years. That report was done when? 2005?

 

The report was done in 2005 but some of the studies used were from the 1955's. Just scan down to the appendix.

[bigugli]

Truth is there are far too many yahoos fishing the "tribs" in southern Ontario. You want to see just how bad? Just going hurrying along the river bank, muttering to all that you pass, 'the CO's just showed up'. Amazing to see how many pack up and scurry away. There is no effective enforcement beyond token appearances. Adding another layer of restrictions and regulations will not change a thing.