Nippissing Limits

[lew]

 

but the other species make up for it I think.

 

 

 

Yup

 

[Rockview]

Disclosure: I run Rockview Cottages on Lake Nipissing and I am Treasurer of the Lake Nipissing Stakeholders Association

 

I want to clarify a couple points made here.

 

1. Walleye fishing for sports fishermen (under 40cm) was fantastic here this year. It will continue to be for the next several years as there are now 4 strong year classes (2009-2012). The oldest of these are now just entering into the slot zone where they cannot be kept by sports fishermen.

 

2. The issue is that there is a very low adult Walleye population due to fishing pressure from both sportsfishing and commercial fishing. Continuing to take the same quantity of Walleye on an annual basis will cause a massive problem in a couple years unless we do something. Our suggestion is to implement our extensive Walleye re-stocking program rather than reducing limits as it is the best solution for everyone - residents, resort businesses, First Nations, tourists.

 

See below for full details regarding plans/issues. Visit LNSA.net to contact us or ask questions here.

 

The reduction in the Walleye daily catch limit will have a severe negative effect on the economy of this region. Tourism is a significant industry for the Lake Nipissing region and the Lake Nipissing Walleye fishery is a significant component with respect to attracting tourists. My estimates, supported by Ontario RTO13a data, indicate that the Lake Nipissing Walleye fishery attracts approximately $30 million annually in direct tourism spending to the region. This entire amount is now at risk because of the decision to reduce the Walleye daily catch limit. The North Bay/Lake Nipissing region hardly needs any more bad news with respect to our economic prospects.

 

There are several facts that are agreed upon by all parties. Lake Nipissing has a low adult Walleye population. The Walleye population on Lake Nipissing is in a stressed condition. Something needs to be done to protect and grow the Lake Nipissing Walleye population.

Ultimately there are really only two ways to increase the Walleye population. You can either take less Walleye out or put more Walleye in.

 

Possible management actions include the following:

 

1. Extensive Walleye re-stocking. This will allow the commercial fishery and sport fishery to thrive without harming either and won't hurt tourism and the local economy. This action has been proven in numerous other juristictions and the conditions on Lake Nipissing are nearly perfect for a significant re-stocking effort. The MNR has a number of employees and consultants who are conceptually against re-stocking and have been unable to counter our arguements in favour of re-stocking at several public meetings. The conditions on Lake Nipissing are ideal for Walleye and an excellent fit for re-stocking. These conditions include a low adult population, a shallow wind-swept lake with good oxygen levels, good food sources and available/underutilized spawning beds. Re-stocking will allow the sportfishing segment to continue to enjoy great Walleye fishing, provide enough to satisfy the commercial fishing and leave enough adult Walleye to increase the adult Walleye population and eventually grow the overall Walleye population.

 

2. Regulate/reduce the catch limits for the commerical fishing industry. The Province of Ontario either does not have the will or ability to do this but choosing option 1 can make this unnecessary. This option also places a significant financial burden on First Nations fishermen and it's hardly fair to ask someone to stop providing for their families.

 

3. Reduce the cormorant population. This will unquestionably help the Walleye population. The double-crested cormorants are not native to Lake Nipissing and it appears the Province of Ontario does not want to upset the environmental lobbyists as there is no other reason not to do this and it enjoys widespread support among all area stakeholders. This option should be a given to be implemented but this option alone is unlikely to completely solve the problem.

 

4. Reduce the daily Walleye catch limit. This will definitely have a negative impact on tourism and the local economy. Local residents are also extremely disappointed that they are being further limited. The MNR has stated publicly that reducing the take limit will not be effective in reducing the number of Walleye caught so this option was clearly chosen for its optics not its effectiveness.

 

5. Deal with the variety of secondary issues such as water quality, spiny water flea, etc. The Ontario MNR stated in public meetings that these factors do not make a significant contribution to the decline in the Walleye population on Lake Nipissing.

 

The Province of Ontario and the Ontario MNR has already chosen option number 4. By choosing this management action, our Provincial Government and the Ontario MNR have taken the easy way out - financially and politically. The Ontario MNR has already stated in public meetings that reducing the daily catch limit will have no positive effect with respect to preserving the Walleye population on Lake Nipissing. The Ontario MNR formed a Public Advisory Committee for consultation on this issue but it's clear that this committee was formed purely to help with public perception to help "sell" this decision. Many members of the Public Advisory Committee were strongly against this decision and offered alternatives - which include re-stocking Walleye and reducing the cormorant population.

 

It is clear that a significant Walleye re-stocking effort is the best possible solution. The only issue would be the financial investment and labour requirements. I am part of a local group called the Lake Nipissing Stakeholders Association. We presented a re-stocking plan to the local MNR office over two months ago and have not received any feedback or response despite our repeated attempts to contact them regarding this. We have offered to fund the re-stocking effort and provide all necessary equipment and labour. Our group has been re-stocking Walleye in Lake Nipissing for over 25 years and we clearly have the skill set and expertise required to implement a significant re-stocking plan. Re-stocking Walleye is the only option that would be a clear win for all parties.

 

The Provincal Government and Ontario MNR needs only to give their approval, support our efforts and continue to monitor the lake.

 

As an individual directly impacted by this decision made by the MNR I would ask that you reverse your decision and leave the catch limit as is and give re-stocking a chance. There is the potential for great success without any downside risk.

 

We are asking everyone in support of our efforts to contact the Minister of Natural Resources - Honourable Michael Gravelle at [email protected] OR [email protected] to voice their support for re-stocking and get the daily catch limit change reversed.

 

Sincerely,

Jason Broughton

LNSA Treasurer

 

 

[Roy]

Thank you for your informative post, Jason.

[Gerritt]

Jason,

 

Thank you for the post! some great ideas here!

 

My issues are this. The MNR has decided to target only ONE section of the issue at hand negating all others... that being recreational anglers.

 

Leaving the commercial and NFN unchecked and free to do as they please.

 

Why is it a native family can do as they please to feed their families... when us as non-native cannot. This is discriminatory and against our Charter. These changes will prevent NON-natives to put food on the table, while our native friends can have 200lbs of walleye fillets in the freezer... You see where I am going here?

 

I am in agreement with additional restocking! That said are we just giving the commercial interests more fish to catch? and allowing the natives to have 400lbs in their freezer, while we cannot sustain our own families?

 

I mentioned the Cormie problem in another thread, I agree some action needs to be carried forward... but the anti in Toronto are making all the rules here...

 

A very sad state of affairs for the Nipissing region for sure.

 

I feel for all the businesses that rely on tourist dollars to make ends meat... that will be coming to an end I fear....

 

While the Commercial interests make MORE money.. and the NFN add even more fish to their freezers...

 

It sickens me.

 

G

Edited December 14, 2012 by Gerritt

[Headhunter]

Thanks for taking the time with a well thought out response Jason. I appreciate the insight you have provided. It all seems to pretty much confirm what a lot of us have been saying...

As has been stated many times, we all know the reason that Nip is in ths state it is.

I think a cormorant cull would help, how much, I'm certainly not in a position to answer that, but I do know is that without gill nets on the lake, the lake has a much better chance at becoming what it was, then with them.

And I'm not even going to touch on the subject of "incidential catches" because some of the folks here would likely has a fit, should they find out about the piles of Pike, Musky, Bass, perch etc, that can't make it through those nets and end up rotting on shore.

I honestly feel really bad for those who's income is based on the Lake. It must be very frustrating to have knowledge, desire and ability, only to have your hands tied by a bunch of bureacrats who really only seem interested in their own agenda, vs what the folks who live it, have to say.

Thanks for the link to the pencil pushers...

HH

[Gerritt]

Email sent to our Dear. Minister.

 

Thanks again Jason

[Gerritt]

Equality Rights in the Charter

Section 15 guarantees equal benefit and protection of the law to people, saying:

 

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability

 

Section 15 applies to government, not the private sector

You can’t use section 15 to challenge every inequality in life. The Charter controls laws and other government actions. It doesn’t control private citizens, businesses, or organizations. Before you can claim the protection of section 15, you must show that you are being treated unequally by a law or by the action of a government official or department or some agency very closely connected to government, such as a school board or labour relations board. If a private individual, organization, or company violates your rights, you may be able to complain under the BC Human Rights Code or the Canadian Human Rights Act. For more information on this, check script 236 – “Human Rights and Discrimination Protection”, and script 270 – “Protection Against Job Discrimination”.

 

Section 15 protects people, not companies

Courts have said that section 15 protects people, not companies or other artificial persons, because it gives the right to equality to “every individual”.

 

The Supreme Court of Canada’s approach to equality

Section 15 does not require everyone to be treated the same way regardless of different circumstances. Showing that the government or the law is treating you differently, or showing that a law that appears to treat people the same way actually treats members of a particular group differently, is just one step in showing a violation of section 15 equality rights.

 

You also need to show that section 15 applies to the different treatment you received. Section 15 prohibits discrimination because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. It also prohibits discrimination on “analogous” grounds – meaning comparable grounds not listed in section 15. The Courts have said that something “analogous” is a personal characteristic that you can’t change at all, or you can’t change without great personal cost or difficulty – like sexual orientation or citizenship.

 

The Supreme Court has said that the central purpose of section 15 is to promote “substantive equality” by fighting discrimination. So in addition, courts will focus on whether the law or government action is discriminatory in creating a disadvantage by perpetuating (or indefinitely continuing) prejudice or stereotyping.

 

 

 

 

Sound like we are being discriminated against because of our race, ethnic origin and colour if you ask me.

 

 

 

G

Edited December 14, 2012 by Gerritt

[BillM]

 

Why is it a native family can do as they please to feed their families... when us as non-native cannot. This is discriminatory and against our Charter. These changes will prevent NON-natives to put food on the table, while our native friends can have 200lbs of walleye fillets in the freezer... You see where I am going here?

 

 

 

To play devils advocate here for a second, if you're fishing for nothing but sustenance you probably shouldn't be out in Nipissing in the first place. That's a silly argument if you ask me.

[Gerritt]

To play devils advocate here for a second, if you're fishing for nothing but sustenance you probably shouldn't be out in Nipissing in the first place. That's a silly argument if you ask me.

 

How so? I feel your argument is flawed (difference of opinion)

 

 

Thats what the NFN claim they do... they state they fish to feed their families... So why am I not allowed to do so? Because my skin is a different colour? Instead the law states I have to purchase a license (Tax) for the privilege to bring fish home for the table... and now the government says I am allowed to take even fewer fish home (Even though they taxed me)... I am allowed 2 fish in my possession. While another group could have hundreds.... because they a re feeding their families.. while I as a white man cannot.

 

I feel it is best if I stay out of this thread... going forward I dont want to see it locked up..

 

Perhaps we can continue this via PM.

 

G

Edited December 14, 2012 by Gerritt

[Rockview]

Many of you are making good points about the commercial fishing issue.

 

My personal opinion and that of the Lake Nipissing Stakeholders Association is that the commercial fishing issue is not something we can control or influence directly and even if something could or should be changed it won't happen quickly.

 

Our proposal is that re-stocking is a good solution that will have a positive impact and we can implement it immediately. We are planning to harvest a lot of eggs and raise them to various life stages without it costing very much.

 

Also, even if you believe that this will only result in more Walleye for the commerical nets, it's important to realize that sportsfishermen will have the chance to catch them in the 13-16 in range before they are caught in commercial nets. Hopefully enough make it past the nets to increase the adult Walleye population.

 

In any case, doing nothing is not going to help and complaining about natives and commercial fishing hasn't achieved anything either.

 

We prefer to do something positive that has the potential to work and definitely won't hurt.

 

Jason

 

 

[woodenboater]

 

We prefer to do something positive that has the potential to work and definitely won't hurt.

 

Jason

 

Best reply so far and the way forward.

[Headhunter]

I just spoke with my MPP's consituencey office as well as writing an email message with a link to this thread.

I suggest that if more of us did this, perhaps we might effect some change of some level.

HH

[doubleheader]

I just waded thru 6 pages of posts on a subject near and dear to my heart, Lake Nipissing and walleyes fishing, yet I'm sitting here feeling quite stunned by Kevin's revelation regarding his health, and would just like to start by saying I'm very sorry to hear about this Kevin, keep the faith, and I'll be saying a prayer for you and Leslie. I started going to Lakair when both Kevin and I were kids, so it's been a few years, and it's been a million memories. Mom and Dad would take us every year, and once I got old enough that I wasn't a total pita I'd get to go with the "dads" on their trip too. (That's where you learned a lot, about a lot of stuff ) Back then it was fairly easy to catch a good stringer of walleyes, even though we didn't have all the gadgets nor a lot of knowledge for that matter. Frankly you could be successful and be a lazy fisherman; there was little need to hunt them down. After the early 70's there was a long period of time I didn't regularly fish the Nip, then in 1995 Dad and I made his last trip. It stirred so many memories I've been back every year for at least a week. I've said this a 100 times, but the typical Canadian fishing vacation, such as offered by Lakair, is the best family vacation bargain on the planet. Anyhow, I remember one day at the dock shortly after we arrived at Lakair and asking Kevin for the inside track. You know, "are they deep, in the weeds, yada yada yada." His response was probably not the recommended lodge-owner reply but it struck a nerve with me as I realized immediately he was right. He said, "the fun is in the hunt". I've been chasing walleyes seriously now for over 20 years. It consumes me. I've fished many tournaments, won a few, and qualified for the Cabelas Nation Team Championship multiple times. Bottom line is, I'm not saying I'm anywhere close to the best in the world, but I am an accomplished walleye fisherman, and here is my take on the Nip, as least as it pertains to the west arm. From 90's up to about 2010 the walleye fishing could be classified as very good. You had to hunt them, but there were plenty of fish to be hunted. I had many days of 10+ fish, and even a few of 30+. These fish were mostly 20" or better, in fact I had one day in 2007 where we landed 5 fish over 25". Point is I should have seen the crash coming as I wasn't catching many under the slot fish. For the last 3 years we haven't been able to do very well. One or two years you can chalk up to bad timing, but three years in a row? Last year in 2 weeks of fishing almost every day for walleye using almost every presentation known to man I managed only a handful of walleye. So, I would have to concur with all others that something had to be done, and done quickly. No serious walleye fisherman, including me, is going to continue to go to a lake where you can fish for days on end with minimal results. I surely hope things get turned around, and i am thankful to all of you that are trying so hard to make that happen.

 

ps. Billy Bob, I don't think one can fairly compare Oneida lake with the Nip and assume a common outcome. The bodies of water are vastly different.

[doubleheader]

Still plenty of bass and pike in the West Arm. I have no idea why walleye are held in such high regard. Sure they taste good but they fight like a wet hankerchief. I may be the odd man out but I really like the taste of pike (more so than bass) and keep the occasional one for dinner.

 

I must respectfully disagree with this post. I have caught numerous walleye on the Nip that fought as hard or harder than a sheepshead.

[jimmer]

A great thread that can probably be repeated for other areas in the province. The unfortunate thing about everyone's belief that stocking can solve the problem is that the MNR says it is way too costly or it will ruin the natural strain. All excuses in my books, but they have been giving that line for many many years now.

We all see what stocking programs can accomplish if you look at lakes out west or in the states, so their statements don't hold much for me.

I am continuing my group trip to Nip for now!

[aplumma]

I have living proof that stocking works. We had someone throw a few snakeheads in the Potomac and less than 10 years they are classified as established. This is a fish that is illegal to return to the water alive and tastes good. We have a few tournaments a year now that you can bow hunt, shine (with lights), fish, snag and use any means except explosives to catch. With that much going against them they still have a firm foot hold and we can not get rid of them. Personally while I hate that they got there now they are there they are a blast to fish for and great dinner fare also. I think that stocking is a way to mitigate the damage that harvesting is doing and hopefully everyone can enjoy the bounty of the lake. I for one know as long as the effort to continue improving the fisheries is present I will continue to spend my dollars up North.

 

 

Art

[Rockview]

A great thread that can probably be repeated for other areas in the province. The unfortunate thing about everyone's belief that stocking can solve the problem is that the MNR says it is way too costly or it will ruin the natural strain. All excuses in my books, but they have been giving that line for many many years now.

We all see what stocking programs can accomplish if you look at lakes out west or in the states, so their statements don't hold much for me.

I am continuing my group trip to Nip for now!

 

 

For evidence that Walleye re-stocking works - Lac La Biche in Alberta and the Red Lakes in Minnesota are excellent examples. In both of these cases, the Walleye fishery had completed collapsed to the point where they could not even harvest eggs on those lakes for re-stocking. On Lake Nipissing, we are hoping to avoid the collapse part and move directly to the "Walleye Factory" part. The lake conditions here are nearly perfect for a re-stocking effort to have a significant positive impact.

 

The MNR often sites examples where re-stocking has been ineffective but they use lakes and conditions that are not remotely close to the current state of Lake Nipissing. The Red Lakes in Minnesota are very similar to Lake Nipissing - including a Native Commercial Fishery and they are a fantastic example of re-stocking success.

 

Jason

[woodenboater]

The passion for fishing in this thread is pretty remarkable and hopefully bodes well for Nipissing.

 

@doubleheader thanks for the timeline of walleye fishing on the West Arm. I'd be fairly sad to see it drop like that over the years with no relief in sight. As for sheepshead...

[jimmer]

For evidence that Walleye re-stocking works - Lac La Biche in Alberta and the Red Lakes in Minnesota are excellent examples. In both of these cases, the Walleye fishery had completed collapsed to the point where they could not even harvest eggs on those lakes for re-stocking. On Lake Nipissing, we are hoping to avoid the collapse part and move directly to the "Walleye Factory" part. The lake conditions here are nearly perfect for a re-stocking effort to have a significant positive impact.

 

The MNR often sites examples where re-stocking has been ineffective but they use lakes and conditions that are not remotely close to the current state of Lake Nipissing. The Red Lakes in Minnesota are very similar to Lake Nipissing - including a Native Commercial Fishery and they are a fantastic example of re-stocking success.

 

Jason

Keep at them, maybe your success will bode well for other areas that have been pleading for a re-stocking program.

[outllaw]

while theres great thought and future efforts,sadly theres no concrete action from first nation netters. that i say will be a back-breaker. gill nets just dont suffocate walleyes.. if you ever have the views of gillnets and trawlers you would scream.. setting a standard of stocking will lead to disease,unless the species are styripped from the waterway in question.

[Nipfisher]

 

Fedeli sends MNR Minister an open letter

Friday, December 14, 2012 by: Kate Adams

 

December 14, 2012

 

Hon Michael Gravelle, MPP

Suite 6630, 6th Floor, Whitney Block

99 Wellesley Street West

Toronto, Ontario M7A 1W3

 

Dear Minister:

 

I’m writing to ask you to rescind your decision to reduce the daily walleye catch limits on Lake Nipissing from four to two for those anglers with sport fishing licences and from two to one for those with conservation licences effective January 1, 2013.

 

Minister, you have taken the easy way out rather than perform due diligence in finding a longterm solution in the best interests of all Lake Nipissing stakeholders and interests. In my letter to you dated August 28, 2012, I outlined possible solutions and causes that needed to be examined with regards to declining walleye stocks prior to any management action to reduce catch limits.

 

You and your Ministry have been silent on these suggestions, so I can only assume I was correct in my August letter when I stated you had already made up your mind at that time.

 

If you had done your job, you would know that there are Lake Nipissing stakeholders ready to pay for and fully implement a walleye restocking program for the lake on their own without government assistance. Restocking has been scientifically been shown to be effective elsewhere. All they need, Minister, is your approval to proceed.

 

I will again point out that Lake Nipissing’s cormorant population has been allowed to grow over the last decade. The birds now take over 100,000 kilograms of fish – more than four times what anglers draw from the lake. You and your Ministry can no longer ignore this issue and need to

address it directly.

 

Minister, tourist operators around Lake Nipissing started receiving cancellation requests within hours of this decision becoming public. They should not have to pay for your Liberal government’s years of failure and mismanagement of this fishery. It’s time you admit this

decision is wrong-headed and short-sighted. There is still time for you to reverse it and engage with stakeholders to find a long-term solution. I look forward to your prompt response.

 

Sincerely,

Vic Fedeli

MPP Nipissing

[Marc Thorpe]

Hi Jason,your solution and use of local brood is from what I gather your best opportunity.

Financial assistance and approval is needed

 

having worked in collaboration with OMNR and QMNR for some 25 years ,there are times when disappointment arise

 

1- Have you contacted your senior regional biologist for his support?(I'd recommend working closely with him and wildlife techs)

 

2- I would amongst all outfitters around Nippissing commence a daily capture log

what this will do,in case you cannot get support or overturn the decision is offer next year a complete log/data with length of overall captures (You may be doing it already) and times fished.

Catch per rate unit effort with size is a great tool for gathering data and showing trends in fish populations and time invested by anglers.

I fully understand that 1 or 2 years may be time consuming but should offer a population portrait which as you stated seems already outlined,Its just one more piece of data that will support your need to assistance from the provincial gov

 

best of luck

[Billy Bob]

May I suggest a solution to eliminate Gill Netting on Lake Nipissing.

 

Impose a small tax on all the resorts on the lake....Like 1/2 to 1% on rentals...(details to be worked out)

 

Also impose a "Special" Lake Nipissing STAMP that all anglers must purchase and apply to their fishing license...let's say for example $5 per stamp...then both monies collected from the resort owners and fishermen would pay the "NOW ACTIVE" gill netters on Lake Nipissing an annual stippen up to the amount they have averaged over the last 3 years until these "Active" netters are deceased. NO NEW GILL NETTING WOULD BE ALLOWED and those "Active" netters would have to turn in their equipment (nets only) and no longer be able to legally net fish of any kind on Lake Nipissing.

 

Also any extra fund (if any) would go DIRECTLY to a stocking program for Lake Nipissing ONLY...

 

Details could be worked out...Like this program ends after all "Active" netters are deceased, actual amount of the tax and stamp, etc...

 

This way only those actually fishing Lake Nippissing are the ones contributing to the cause....the resort owner would of course pass on the cost of their "Special Lake Nippissing Tax" to those who rent from them. But in the end this would help the resort owners tremendously.

 

Bob

[Headhunter]

May I suggest a solution to eliminate Gill Netting on Lake Nipissing.

 

Impose a small tax on all the resorts on the lake....Like 1/2 to 1% on rentals...(details to be worked out)

 

Also impose a "Special" Lake Nipissing STAMP that all anglers must purchase and apply to their fishing license...let's say for example $5 per stamp...then both monies collected from the resort owners and fishermen would pay the "NOW ACTIVE" gill netters on Lake Nipissing an annual stippen up to the amount they have averaged over the last 3 years until these "Active" netters are deceased. NO NEW GILL NETTING WOULD BE ALLOWED and those "Active" netters would have to turn in their equipment (nets only) and no longer be able to legally net fish of any kind on Lake Nipissing.

 

Also any extra fund (if any) would go DIRECTLY to a stocking program for Lake Nipissing ONLY...

 

Details could be worked out...Like this program ends after all "Active" netters are deceased, actual amount of the tax and stamp, etc...

 

This way only those actually fishing Lake Nippissing are the ones contributing to the cause....the resort owner would of course pass on the cost of their "Special Lake Nippissing Tax" to those who rent from them. But in the end this would help the resort owners tremendously.

 

Bob

Interesting plan BB... but I can almost guarantee that it won't happen, simply because NFN has a different set of rules to live by, then the average person.

We have had similar discussions here and have been fortunate enough to have a member of NFN as a board member, discussing this topic.

AS NFN is essentially self governed, it would require real ramifications, by the band, to stop or control any and all gill netting.

Based on those earlier threads, NFN really have no teeth when it comes to ramifications for actions not condoned by the band.

Being socially ostracized , doesn't stop someone who needs to feed their family.Having no real (financial) ramifications for going outside the rules also makes enforcement a challenge.

HH

[dickie]

May I suggest a solution to eliminate Gill Netting on Lake Nipissing.

 

Impose a small tax on all the resorts on the lake....Like 1/2 to 1% on rentals...(details to be worked out)

 

Also impose a "Special" Lake Nipissing STAMP that all anglers must purchase and apply to their fishing license...let's say for example $5 per stamp...then both monies collected from the resort owners and fishermen would pay the "NOW ACTIVE" gill netters on Lake Nipissing an annual stippen up to the amount they have averaged over the last 3 years until these "Active" netters are deceased. NO NEW GILL NETTING WOULD BE ALLOWED and those "Active" netters would have to turn in their equipment (nets only) and no longer be able to legally net fish of any kind on Lake Nipissing.

 

Also any extra fund (if any) would go DIRECTLY to a stocking program for Lake Nipissing ONLY...

 

Details could be worked out...Like this program ends after all "Active" netters are deceased, actual amount of the tax and stamp, etc...

 

This way only those actually fishing Lake Nippissing are the ones contributing to the cause....the resort owner would of course pass on the cost of their "Special Lake Nippissing Tax" to those who rent from them. But in the end this would help the resort owners tremendously.

 

BobHow much money do we have to give them for the problem to go away?