BillM Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 like those who think nothing of slicing a salmon for roe, but would crucify someone that did the same to a steelhead? selective harvest indeed What exactly are you insinuating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kemper Posted October 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 like those who think nothing of slicing a salmon for roe, but would crucify someone that did the same to a steelhead? selective harvest indeed i believe the 300 limit on panfish in the kawarthas was introduced to thin out the huge populations of those tasty little egg robbing fish to help the larger species? I hope you aren't implying that I gut and chuck salmon? What exactly are you insinuating? My thoughts as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris.brock Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) Ever fish the kawartha's?? They go thru cycles, and it has NOTHING to do with fishing pressure. trent severn waterway is the biggest culprit. When spawning beds are left high and dry for a few years, you notice the decline in fish populations. The years we have high water in the trent, we get lots of fish. It happens. Check the scugog walleye population right now....check it again in 3-4 years. I've seen it happen in all the kawartha lakes I fish. S. the Kawartha's receive a constant, high fishing pressure. They're shallow, productive lakes that sustain the pressure better than other lakes. But compare the Kawartha's for example, with a fly-in or portage lake, and you can really notice the difference. Fishing pressure makes alot of difference on the Kawartha's, the Bog, Rice or Simcoe. There is likely other population cycles working too, but the harvest pressure is definately significant. Edited October 30, 2012 by chris.brock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kemper Posted October 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 the Kawartha's receive a constant, high fishing pressure. They're shallow, productive lakes that sustain the pressure better than other lakes. But compare the Kawartha's for example, with a fly-in or portage lake, and you can really notice the difference. Fishing pressure makes alot of difference on the Kawartha's, the Bog, Rice or Simcoe. There is likely other population cycles working too, but the harvest pressure is definately significant. I've been fishing Upper Buckhorn since I was a kid with my old man - no doubt the numbers and size are down over the past ~15 or so years. Every once in a while there is a bumper crop of one species or the other, but it doesn't seem to be consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoty Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Personally, I think slot limits are the way to go. IMO, all lakes should have slot limits on the most popular "catch and keep" species. Nothing hurts a fishery more than over-harvesting of the main "brood" stock fish. The slot that the Kawartha's have for Walleye is perfect, IMO. Perfect eating size fish are legally allowed to be kept, whereas the really young and the good "brood" stock fish are to be released. To me, THAT is the perfect balance between Anglers and the treehuggers. From multiple personal experiences while guiding on Quinte, I sure wish they would put a slot limit in there instead of the current limit (4 fish with one over 24"). I think a 14-20" would be a great slot to have there and the limit should be ZERO on fish over 24". Especially with the netting and such that goes on. (I have native status, btw... not pointing fingers at anyone). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Slots work great.. A combination of all of these surely would make for a healthier fishery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northernpike56 Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 There's no question that some people are scofflaws or only prepared to follow laws they agree with but the vast majority of anglers will follow the law just because it's the law. They will also self police those situations on the river when someone is breaking the law in obvious fashion. Here's what works elsewhere A) Make people display their fishing license on the outside of their clothing, the investigative aspect is obvious, the self policing aspect would be omnipresent on stream. B)have large no kill, no bait, single hook, no barbs region, like the GTA as an example. Guys who wanted to, would learn effective ways of catching fish in this area without one bait , specifically roe and with no incentive to harvest a toxic waste dump and feed it to those you love, anglers would release all of the fish for angling seconds, thirds, etc.. C) Ban roe fishing, at least in pressured areas as it is still far and away the most egregious aspect of the "harvest- no harvest issue. And the most hardcore guys rabidly cling to it despite the fact Ontario is the last province where it's legal.. The biggest problem in Ontario is that the fisheries law has been "harmonized" one of the weak ass legal speak terms a government uses to make it's job easy. Ontario's Fisheries law is easy to understand, easy to enforce but the results are ultimately harmful to the basic issue, ie., fish abundance and respect for the law in a recreational pursuit that includes death as a byproduct. Our province has to get serious about the laws of conservation that are based on conservation not ease of understanding what if you don't need your fishing license yet? I just always carry my drivers license in my pocket for ID Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Stoty, you cannot have it "zero" fish over 24". you HAVE to provide right to allow an angler to keep his trophy fish. now, like GB did with muskie, a trophy fish has to be viewed as a true trophy...no 50" muskie there, no 14lbs walleye on quinte. but like someone catching a 56" muskie on GB has the right to harvest it, someone should have right to harvest a 15lbs plus walleye on quinte. however, otherwise, I agree with your post 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoty Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) Stoty, you cannot have it "zero" fish over 24". you HAVE to provide right to allow an angler to keep his trophy fish. now, like GB did with muskie, a trophy fish has to be viewed as a true trophy...no 50" muskie there, no 14lbs walleye on quinte. but like someone catching a 56" muskie on GB has the right to harvest it, someone should have right to harvest a 15lbs plus walleye on quinte. however, otherwise, I agree with your post 100%. I'm gonna have to disagree with that. With the technology we have (cameras, taxidermy, etc), there's absolutely no reason to keep a trophy fish these days as the replica's are identical and a lot of the time look even better than the actual fish. What's the point of harvesting a 15lb Walleye anyways? The meat isn't great from a fish that old. Edit to add: I had a client in 2010 catch a walleye that went just over 10lbs. It was hooked deep and was bleeding pretty badly. He obviously had the option to keep it..and declined, and since I knew there was a good shot at the fish not making it, I decided to not let it go to waste and kept it myself. The meat was JUNK. It was a greyish colour and rubbery. Edited October 30, 2012 by Stoty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Nelson Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 Stoty gets it. Let the big ones spread their genes. Replicas are a great option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 ummmmm, well, for one, replica's look like toys, and they aren't even close to looking like your fish. they only look like a mold that the replica artist may have on hand. salmonoids and walleye look absolutely brutal done by replica's...and i'm talking the good ones, you know, from advanced. i promise you, when, not if, but when I catch my trophy walleye it will be bonked, put on ice, and mounted the way I want it - a skin mount. otherwise I might as well just give my credit card number to advanced and order me a trophy. replica's are fine for guys who want the toys on the wall, but for a true trophy hunter, there is absolutely nothing wrong with keeping a true trophy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoty Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 ummmmm, well, for one, replica's look like toys, and they aren't even close to looking like your fish. they only look like a mold that the replica artist may have on hand. salmonoids and walleye look absolutely brutal done by replica's...and i'm talking the good ones, you know, from advanced. i promise you, when, not if, but when I catch my trophy walleye it will be bonked, put on ice, and mounted the way I want it - a skin mount. otherwise I might as well just give my credit card number to advanced and order me a trophy. replica's are fine for guys who want the toys on the wall, but for a true trophy hunter, there is absolutely nothing wrong with keeping a true trophy.... Whatever floats your boat, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted October 30, 2012 Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 BB, to further your point, a fish has no genetics to spread when they reach "true" trophy status. its like having your great grandfather trying to procreate. many studies have been done that point to the lack of fertility in advanced aged fish. it is a great thought however. thankfully the human race didn't follow it, or we all wouldn't be here right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Nelson Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Well to some a 8lb walleye is worth a skin mount. To others its a 14lb. I realize that people keeping trophy fish to "stuff" isnt a big concern for numbers in a fishery. Its the anglers keeping their limits every time they fill them to eat. Lower density fish such as Musky are a different story. Release them so they can reproduce, or be enjoyed by another angler. And there are replicas that look as good as a skin mount. ( and they will last a lot longer) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 I agree with you there. We have released 6 walleye 14lbs or greater - none 15lbs however. 90% of anglers would consider those wall mounts. we also released a 24.5lbs brown trout. again, another fish that likely most would consider a wall mount. however, all were released. when I do catch a trophy, a true trophy (16lbs walleye, 25lbs brown, etc) I will kill it to stuff. i wont feel bad doing so either. replica's are ok for big fish, but a true trophy, nothing wrong with putting that on your wall. i'd hate to have the mnr say to me that I cannot keep my trophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laszlo Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 I would have no issue with a no kill for all river run trout after the 30th of Sept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregoire Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 AS has been pointed out the real problem here is enforcement. The government of Ontario either does not have, or is unwilling to commit the resources to enforce our current fishing regulations. Going to to a tag limit, which I think is a great idea, or a no kill system is not possible without first having access to enforce those limits. This would mean a massive increase in the amount of CO's that are on the water. I have fished many highly pressured water ways in the past year, and on weekends as well. Not once have I come across a CO this year. Something like a CO on the water in every major lake in the Kawarthas, and multiple CO's on a lake like Simcoe would be needed. At the very least CO's stationed at boat launches at the end of the day to check anglers catches at the end of the day. The greatest ideas in the world are useless unless we are able to act upon them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Selective harvest is often a very good thing for most waterbodies, it keeps populations in check and allows a larger population of trophy class fish, so i'd have to disagree. And im 95% c&r. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 ......or a no kill system is not possible without first having access to enforce those limits.... So you think everyone would just disobey the law and keep fish regardless? Most people out there obey the law without having to have a CO standing behind them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adolson Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Have you eaten an Ontario farmed trout lately? Anyone who thinks they can tell the difference is lying to themselves. At $15 for an average rainbow trout fillet, my wallet can tell the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kemper Posted October 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Nope. Every time I pick up a package of fish I read the label. Aquaculture = put it back. There's something not right about a trout having a diet of soy/grain pellets and anitbiotics. Have you eaten a steak, chicken, pig, etc lately? Antibiotic use in Ontario aquaculture is low...VERY low compared to other types of farmed animal. Somewhere around 2%-3% of Ontario farmed trout receive any form of antibiotics, and they are only administered when needed - not included in regular feed like other agriculture. There is also a wait period after fish are fed antibiotics to ensure low residual value. Just putting it out there, after working in the agriculture industry I would much rather eat a farmed fish than anything else from a farm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmer Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 I don't like putting in regulations or laws that are based on the few (abusers/poachers), rather than the many. Enforcement with heavy consequences is the answer. Unfortunately, no kill is playng into the hands of you know who. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch312 Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 I hope you aren't implying that I gut and chuck salmon? My thoughts as well... lol...don't get so defensive, it implies guilt i wasn't implying you do this as i haven't a clue about your fishing practices, but we're all aware this happens everywhere. i just don't see how someone can justify targeting one species and harvesting the eggs to help them catch a "better" fish. i guess it's the main reason why i'd fully support a ban on the use of roe. as far as buying fish vs wild caught. we all know it costs much more to catch them ourselves, but i think most of us are just fine with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob v Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 I would support lower catch and possession limits - but more importantly I would support more and better enforcement of our existing limits/rules. As someone said earlier - unfortunately some people can't be trusted to do anything by the book - take a limit, put it in the car and go back and start again ??? Those kind of folks should be fined, have their equipment taken away and be banned from the sport !! But we need enforcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregoire Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) So you think everyone would just disobey the law and keep fish regardless? Most people out there obey the law without having to have a CO standing behind them. I hate it when people only quote a part of post, that way they can skew your opinio. If you would take the time to read my post you would see that I do not think that there is a point in making rules that are impossible to enforce given the current amount of resources we devote to policing. Although the majority of citizens are law abiding, there is a minority that would realize that enforcement is lacking and would do what they want, much like the situation that exists now. While throwing around ideas and discussing this topic is worhtwhile, if we really value and want to protect our fishery we need to devote a lot more money to managing the resource. Unfotunately that would mean either taking money away from other departments, raising taxes overall, or taxing fisherman at a much higher rate. Personally I would be ok with raising taxes overall, or paying more for my fishing liscence, provided I knew the money was going to maintain the fishery. I realize that I am in the majority on this issue. Edited October 31, 2012 by Roaring Dan Seavey 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