Gerritt Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) I have read an article on a plan by the MNR to increase catch and kill rates as well as extend their season as well... are Bass considered invasive in the northern ontario Zone 5? Edited November 30, 2012 by Gerritt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerritt Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) If you don't know Gord he is an award winning writer for Canada Outdoors and In-Fisherman magazines. In the north bass are not as popular as they are in southern Ontario and in many areas they are seen as a nuisance. They already have a year round open season and they now have a proposal to increase daily limits and allow unlimited daily possessions through the winter and spawning season. Here is his request. From Gord Pyzer Hi folks ... I have a huge favour to ask of each one of you. The Fisheries Management Plan for Zone 5 in Northwestern Ontario is currently under review and what is being proposed for bass is extremely troubling. A small group of folks, who are opposed to bass, have persuaded the MNR to include the option of killing four (4) bass, <35 cm in size, every day of fishing during the critical winter and spring spawning periods. In other words, from November 30th to July 1st. All of the major research into managing bass populations - especially fragile northern bass populations - that has been carried out by OMNR scientists like Dr. Mark Ridgway and Dr. David Philip, clearly shows that targeting bass in the winter and when they are spawning in the spring has major negative effects on both the over all bass population and the age class structure. Quite simply, the research is very clear that there are absolutely no redeeming qualities when anglers fish for bass in the winter and during the spawn. Indeed, Dr. Philips research in southeastern Ontario, where the bass season is closed during the winter and spring, shows that in some lakes 100% of the nesting males exhibit hook wounds and were the season to be open, it is conceivable that the entire population of spawning males could be killed and harvested. Unfortunately, the small pocket of anglers in and around the Atikokan area have attempted to "hijack" the process. Quite frankly, they do not like bass and wish to see bass eliminated and removed from the lakes and rivers in the region, despite the fact that bass have been present in NW Ontario for over 100 years. What is even more incredulous, however, is the fact that maintaining the "status quo" and keeping the regulations we currently have, is not even an option that is being offered to anglers during the planning process. This is akin to asking ... "would you prefer to be hanged, electrocuted or killed by lethal injection" ... without offering the option of staying alive! Indeed, without the status quo option even being offered, the process is completely flawed. I would not presume to tell you what to say, but I can tell you that the science is crystal clear: Killing bass when they are most vulnerable over the winter, and especially when they are nesting in the spring, results in severe negative consequences. As Ontario anglers, these are YOUR FISH and you have the right to provide input before the process closes on November 30th. I would ask but one favour, simply send an email to the following two OMNR biologists and tell them what you think. Barry Corbett ... [email protected] Darryl McLeod ... [email protected] Barry and Darryl are both great guys, who have advised me that they will ensure your comments are taken to the planning committee. All you need to say is that you do not support the harvest/killing of bass in the winter and spring when they are nesting and that a protective winter/spring bass season needs to be implemented in Northwestern Ontario, identical to that which is in place in southern Ontario. And remember, the deadline for comments is November 30th so send the boys an email now. Thanks folks ... but more importantly, the bass thank you! Edited November 30, 2012 by Gerritt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosebunk Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Seems absurd. Those locals in that area are likely walleye lovers. Smallies compete with wallies at times in same habitats, and are more aggressive and apt to take over. Warming climate trends and they will have more of the upper hand as well. Maybe they're seeing a change to the fisheries there that they don't like... but to propose what they are, goes beyond too far. Interesting read Gerritt. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_hooked Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 A small-mouth bass cooks up as good as any walleye and is a lot more fun to catch.... We have an quickly growing population of smallies in the West end of Nipissing... I think it's great... Too much emphasis by the MNR is maybe placed on studying walleyes.. while ignoring all other species... But other than the sports fishing tourist industry (and who cares about that? - the city of North Bay's idea of tourism is a new casino) .. there is little competitive economic or political benefits to having a lake full of smallies.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Caster Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Thanks. I will email both biologists and provide them with my support for this change and hope it spills over in Zone 11 eventually. -"..despite the fact that the bass have been present in NW Ontario for over 100 years." So these are introduced fish. No wonder the locals don't want them there. 100 years in the history of lakes is very short-sighted. I can't believe he's defending this. - Even though they can keep 4 bass/day, it doesn't mean people will. People rarely keep bass to start with. His emboldened comment is misleading. I don't know anybody who fishes for bass in winter... this is hysteria. - I wonder if the locals had the option of introducing bass in the first place? Probably not; I can completely understand why they would be upset at the presence of bas. -My favorite back lakes are those that hold natural populations of fish...I don't care if they are difficult to catch, that's nature, that's life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerritt Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) I made the 4 fish a day in bold so it would not be over looked. I will remove it. This is a very small number of people wanting to change the regulations for an entire Zone, Not one little back lake and wipe out a species that has been there for a hundred years or more. and I am sure this small minority is not the sole shareholder of all of North Western Ontario.... we are talking about THOUSANDS of lakes rivers and streams here... I for one do not agree with wiping out a species, are we top of the food chain? Yes.... are we gods? No. What gives us the right to cause such harm to something that has been a living, viable resource for so many... to please a few Sad to see you not opposed to this as an angler. G Edited November 30, 2012 by Gerritt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Caster Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I understand your position, but I honestly don't think we are decimating a species here, it sounds like more of a control. It's no different than introducing a new, competitive species into a natural lake and ruining the natural balance....not wiping out the natural fish, but changing the dynamic. No one is licking their chops waiting to crank out 4 fish a day until there are none left. If these people were that strong of opponents they would have dealt with the situation on their own, just as the "mob" typically does. If they really wanted to wipe out the species, would they not take all limits off the table? Plus, that is complete hyperbole because the species would still exist in thousands of other lakes in ontario and around the world. To me, this actually shows more respect to the natural fish in the area. Why would an introduced species (not by "god" but by people) get as much or more protection than the native species?? I would maybe support your view on a lake that is already ruined and re-populated by people, but I'm sure a lot of these impacted lakes are still fairly natural and can still be protected from an over-run, non-native species. Also, it's not "sad" that I see things differently than you hahaha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Personally I'm not in favour of saving them either. Be it one year or a hundred years, they are not a native specie in that area. I think their choice of words "killing" them is a bit overborne. If I'm going to eat them, it will most likely be dead. I think it may be a group of pro bass fishers trying to keep something going that probably wasn't supposed to in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joeytier Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I definitely support it. However, if you think this proposed change would have even the slightest chance of 'decimating' bass populations [in that zone specifically], much less even affect them adversely, I'd like to hear your thought process behind it. Mmmmmm...coldwater smallies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kemper Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Slippery slope guys - can you imagine the outcry if this same proposal was made for the Lake Ontario Salmon fishery? What about steelhead, those were introduced at one time too... I'm not saying our blatant meddling with just about every body of water in the Country was right in the first place, but I have a hard time understanding how trying to reverse it by angler kill is the solution. I also suspect that it would be exceedingly difficult to control the smallmouth bass population unless there is huge angler pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Caster Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Salmon and trout in the great lakes are completely different than invading SMB populations in still-pristine inland waters. As I said before, I support introduced species if the natural populations are already long gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerritt Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@letsfish/documents/document/stdprod_100475.pdf proposed changes...... G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerritt Posted November 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Salmon and trout in the great lakes are completely different than invading SMB populations in still-pristine inland waters. As I said before, I support introduced species if the natural populations are already long gone. OK... so all the thousands of lake are pristine? remember this FMZ borders the USA.... I don't think anyone intentionally put Bass into these lakes... I think they have migrated from the south up... we are not talking about one or two lakes here... we are talking about thousands! will a death warrant placed on the heads of Bass eliminate them? I dont think so... So why the need for such a reckless change? ... 4 Bass per day per person... really? This is sickening. Kemper is right... if this were to happen to Steelhead heads would roll. G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joeytier Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 What exactly are you worried about happening? The few people that actually keep bass up there will now have an opportunity to legally possess more [as if that mattered anyway] without a seasonal size restriction. Bring it on down to zone 11! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishnwire Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I stayed at a lodge near the watershed and was told by the operator to not release any SMB bass, but to either keep them or throw them on shore to die. They consider them "garbage fish" and would be happy to see the entire population destroyed in the belief it would improve the (already good) walleye fishery. I haven't given that establishment any return business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I have seen both sides of the issue and both sides do have their points there are some lakes where invasive small mouth are hurting the walleye population the eco-system can only support bio mass and the bass are breeding like crazy walleye are disappearing and I get tired of catching 200 5" bass while looking for a walleye the right size...maybe no limit on these lakes would be fine but in many lakes the bass are well established , they are known as bass lakes are not over run with stunted sized bass..they should be protected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimace Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 OK... so all the thousands of lake are pristine? remember this FMZ borders the USA.... I don't think anyone intentionally put Bass into these lakes... I think they have migrated from the south up... we are not talking about one or two lakes here... we are talking about thousands! will a death warrant placed on the heads of Bass eliminate them? I dont think so... So why the need for such a reckless change? ... 4 Bass per day per person... really? This is sickening. Kemper is right... if this were to happen to Steelhead heads would roll. G I have not even begun to gain knowledge on this subject in order to form an opinion yet. So I am not trying to be a smartass or anything but the smallmouth bass were introduced up there by the MNR way back in the day. They used train cars filled with small mouth bass and water. They would dump the bass into the lakes right by where the train tracks came close to the water. If you want to get into good smallmouth fishing way up north look for train tracks and you will find smallmouth lakes. As for the subject matter, I think I will read up on it when I get some time. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kemper Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 What exactly are you worried about happening? The few people that actually keep bass up there will now have an opportunity to legally possess more [as if that mattered anyway] without a seasonal size restriction. Bring it on down to zone 11! Would hate to see it set any kind of precedent for zones that couldn't support that type of pressure. Like I said, good luck eliminating that bass population with anything short of a nuclear attack - but open season on bass in the Kawarthas and we would be fishing for nothing but zebra mussels in about a week and a half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joeytier Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Would hate to see it set any kind of precedent for zones that couldn't support that type of pressure. Like I said, good luck eliminating that bass population with anything short of a nuclear attack - but open season on bass in the Kawarthas and we would be fishing for nothing but zebra mussels in about a week and a half. I agree 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I live here in Zone 5, and I can honestly say that I haven't met anyone local who targets bass in the winter and not many locals do in the summer either. I'm the rare exception. I love fishing for smallies in the summer. The small amount of bass fishing I have witnessed, is mainly from tourist and lodge boats . IMHO, with the small amount of people who target bass on our area lakes, I doubt that these changes would have that big of impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trapshooter Posted November 30, 2012 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I live here in Zone 5, and I can honestly say that I haven't met anyone local who targets bass in the winter and not many locals do in the summer either. I'm the rare exception. I love fishing for smallies in the summer. The small amount of bass fishing I have witnessed, is mainly from tourist and lodge boats . IMHO, with the small amount of people who target bass on our area lakes, I doubt that these changes would have that big of impact. Bingo! Will not have an impact whatsoever. IMO the bass population will continue to grow. The Bass guys will always release them and from my experiences the tourists RARELY keep bass to take home. AND, we're already allowed to fish them year round... changing the limits and size restrictions won't do anything negative to the NWO bass population, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Caster Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 OK... so all the thousands of lake are pristine? remember this FMZ borders the USA.... I don't think anyone intentionally put Bass into these lakes... I think they have migrated from the south up... we are not talking about one or two lakes here... we are talking about thousands! will a death warrant placed on the heads of Bass eliminate them? I dont think so... So why the need for such a reckless change? ... 4 Bass per day per person... really? This is sickening. Kemper is right... if this were to happen to Steelhead heads would roll. G Quote from the proposed changes you posted: "Climate change models suggest that the Northwest Region will experience some of the largest impacts of climate change in Ontario. These changes can have a major impact on productivity, fish communities and distribution of those communities within FMZ 5 in future years." This favours bass more than any other species in that region I'd suggest. Also based on the "..lower productivity" of the lakes in that region, increasing bass populations would be detrimental to native species, and based on your argument that we are placing a death warrant on bass heads, I would suggest that not attempting to decrease bass populations would, in reciprocity to your beliefs, be placing a death warrant on native species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_hooked Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 Walleyes were introduced into Lake Nipissing. The yellow walleyes are not natural to Nipissing.. and so, by some of the same logic quoted above... should be eliminated from the lake... either by open season and increase gill netting... Let's help to get Nipissing and all other lakes back to where they were before the white man interfered... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loadman Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 I hope we have the same vision of culling when the Asian Carp comes..... will we feel bad when we wipe them out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manitoubass2 Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 (edited) I'm in zone 5 and an avid bass angler. Increasing limits IMO will do nothing at all to control increasing populations for the simple fact that the majority of our waters aren't pressured, and bass are rarely kept. its already opened year round and that should offer a hint towards whether or not it would help. Either way, I could care less. I have not witnessed any decline in walleye populations in zone 5, at all. And pike seem to be doing great. That keeps me happy (ooopps, skipped over Bens post. Totally agree with him) Edited December 2, 2012 by manitoubass2 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