No roe in the ganny

[torco]

No, only the federal government can do that.

 

Thanks John,

[kemper]

The MNR is spending $250,000 on a weir for Duffins Creek to count fish (i.e Atlantics)

 

That is a lot of money that should go into the enforcement budget. IMO

 

Speaking of enforcement. My understandning is NY State does not fin clip their stocked fish. Bylaw folks will have to take scale samples.

 

Seriously, we're counting Atlantics on Duffs now?

 

I'll save them the $250K - I just counted....oh look, its none.

[Harrison]

Seriously, we're counting Atlantics on Duffs now?

 

I'll save them the $250K - I just counted....oh look, its none.

 

Sorry for sidetrack. I'll stop there. I've been following this for years, kept quiet, but finding more and more frustrating.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Harrison

[craigdritchie]

yes they are wrong to think banning roe will stop the stench , and yes they know the life cycle of the salmon. what most dont understand it is guys that realease the salmon in 2 inches of water and walk away and leave it there to die or people gutting salmon on the banks taking eggs and leaving carcuss to spoil. the only way to stop it is to do a bylaw to stop the gutting of fish on the river bank and make the fine high two or three people charged the word gets out quick

 

The Port Hope town council needs to give its head a shake. It's already illegal to gut salmon and leave the carcass to spoil under the Ontario fishing regulations. If people are already ignoring a provincial law, then adding a new municipal bylaw on top of it won't make one bit of difference.

 

Instead of grandstand gestures like introducing new bylaws that have no teeth, what they need to do is enforce the laws that already exist. If the town is serious, then they should petition MNR or OPP to put some cops down there and write people up. Simple as that.

 

Of course that still won't do anything about the stench of hundreds of salmon that croak from natural causes. No bylaw will solve that problem. At least there aren't thousands of Atlantics adding to the problem :-)

Edited March 21, 2013 by Craig_Ritchie

[craigdritchie]

Seriously, we're counting Atlantics on Duffs now?

 

I'll save them the $250K - I just counted....oh look, its none.

 

That's because we don't stock enough of them. 500,000 a year isn't enough.

[BillM]

Atlantic salmon roe is the best, that's all I use.

 

[chessy]

Craig I think you need to re read the fish and game act the problem is people have read it and there interpretation of the law is that the fish are not edible therefor you can alow it to spoil. I will not get into the debate but it has been confirmed that they are not edible as the moe has a book out and clearly states a salmon over a certain size is not edible for human consumption. I personally do not agree with this but have been told there is little to be done other than charge them for depositing part of a fish on private property

[kemper]

That's because we don't stock enough of them. 500,000 a year isn't enough.

 

At the risk of a serious sidetrack (my apologies) there are thousands of the little buggers in the 4"-8" range up in the headwaters... Do we know where the snag is? Are they not leaving like they should or simply not coming back? Dying in the lake? Cormorant food?

 

I wonder if our rivers are anywhere near healthy enough to sustain a spawning population of Atlantics...I'm all for restoring the fishery, but I don't believe dumping a million fish a year into a few rivers is going to do it.

[Harrison]

Kemper, google Roger Greil atlantics. Pick your way through and have a read.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Harrison

[danjang]

At the risk of a serious sidetrack (my apologies) there are thousands of the little buggers in the 4"-8" range up in the headwaters... Do we know where the snag is? Are they not leaving like they should or simply not coming back? Dying in the lake? Cormorant food?

 

I wonder if our rivers are anywhere near healthy enough to sustain a spawning population of Atlantics...I'm all for restoring the fishery, but I don't believe dumping a million fish a year into a few rivers is going to do it.

Something is going on in the lake.

[Jon]

Hi all:

 

Just to put the Atlantic stocking numbers into perspective (and I know there is more to it than just numbers), between 1969 and 2009, there were just under 76,000,000 Chinook stocked into Lake Ontario compared to over 5,000,000 Atlantics stocked between 1986 and 2009 (source - Great Lakes Fishery Commission database; all numbers includes NY stocking). I'd have to spend a bit more time to get the Ontario numbers by themselves.

 

Here is the link to the database:

http://www.glfc.org/fishstocking/

 

Jon

 

 

[Garnet]

There was a guy charged on Bowmanville Creek last fall with more than allowed salmon roe.

[kemper]

There was a guy charged on Bowmanville Creek last fall with more than allowed salmon roe.

 

Yeah, I've seen it happen at Bronte too.

 

A couple dummies filling bags with roe...the CO was waiting for them at the bank when they waded out.

[craigdritchie]

Hi all:

 

Just to put the Atlantic stocking numbers into perspective (and I know there is more to it than just numbers), between 1969 and 2009, there were just under 76,000,000 Chinook stocked into Lake Ontario compared to over 5,000,000 Atlantics stocked between 1986 and 2009 (source - Great Lakes Fishery Commission database; all numbers includes NY stocking). I'd have to spend a bit more time to get the Ontario numbers by themselves.

 

Here is the link to the database:

http://www.glfc.org/fishstocking/

 

Jon

 

Not to hijack the thread, but .......

 

 

Jon,

 

Yes, we all know more chinooks have been stocked into Lake Ontario than Atlantics, simply due to the fact Ontario has been throwing Pacific salmon into the lake for 20 years longer. But it's not like any of those fish are still out there, so let's not confuse the issue with historical totals.

 

Instead, let's compare apples to apples. For the past several years the number of Atlantic salmon and the number of chinook stocked in the Ontario side of Lake Ontario each year has been roughly the same, at about a half-million each. And, they're stocked at approximately the same size. I see lots and lots of chinooks out there, and almost zero Atlantics.

 

The Lake Ontario Atlantic salmon program is a complete and total flop. The sooner we admit as much, the sooner we can put valuable resources back to managing fish that actually exist and provide a fishery, like steelhead, browns, and Pacific salmon.

[Harrison]

I've fished Duffins basically my whole life, same with my bro and more then a few friends. I have yet to hear of a true Atlantic caught in the river.

 

But I guess for $250,000 the weir on Duffins will let us know how many there are in that river. Those resources alone would cover approx.one CO's salary/benefits for 4 years. OR put that $250k into steelhead stock or better yet... Cohos

Edited March 21, 2013 by Harrison

[Steve]

all of this nonsense talk...praise atlantics!

 

if we can allow just one river fisherman to cach just one atlantic - it will all be worth while.

 

ugh.

[danjang]

We see a a lot of chinooks because they have very good natural reproduction rates. Not only do you see stocked fish, but also wild.

 

The atlantics have not yet had time to establish themselves. It will be slow, but provided that the rivers remain the same, they should be able to thrive once again. I've personally seen and caught a few grilse on the credit. They are returning.

 

In order to create a fishery, time is required to investigate what strains work best. Stocking in large quantities gives a better idea of what the atlantics are doing and research what can be adjusted to ensure their success.

 

Not 100% sure, but I don't think Bowmanville is part of the current atlantic salmon program. If you caught any, they might have been strays!

 

Let's also not forget that this stocking program wasn't made just for fishermen. It's a natural heritage project regarding a game fish.

[moxie]

Have they forgotten that salmon die after the spawn and there dead carcasses feed the rivers

X2.

 

Enforce the laws already in the books?

[fishdawg]

Seriously, we're counting Atlantics on Duffs now?

 

I'll save them the $250K - I just counted....oh look, its none.

LMAO!

[John Bacon]

Not to hijack the thread, but .......

 

 

Jon,

 

Yes, we all know more chinooks have been stocked into Lake Ontario than Atlantics, simply due to the fact Ontario has been throwing Pacific salmon into the lake for 20 years longer. But it's not like any of those fish are still out there, so let's not confuse the issue with historical totals.

 

Instead, let's compare apples to apples. For the past several years the number of Atlantic salmon and the number of chinook stocked in the Ontario side of Lake Ontario each year has been roughly the same, at about a half-million each. And, they're stocked at approximately the same size. I see lots and lots of chinooks out there, and almost zero Atlantics.

 

The Lake Ontario Atlantic salmon program is a complete and total flop. The sooner we admit as much, the sooner we can put valuable resources back to managing fish that actually exist and provide a fishery, like steelhead, browns, and Pacific salmon.

 

Are you saying that the atlantics being stocked are the same size as the chinooks being stocked? That is not true in most cases. All chinook are stocked in the spring from eggs collected in the fall. Atlantics are stocked at various stages in their life cycle. Some yearlings are stocked and those fish are likely similar size to the chinooks being stocked. However, most atlantics are stocked at a much earlier point in their life cycle; some still have their yolk sack when they are stocked. This needs to be taken into consideration when comparing the numbers of atlantics stocked to other fish being stocked in the lake.

 

Chinook are stocked to create a fishery, and stocking larger fish is the best way to do this. Where as atlantics are being stocked to establish a self sustaining population. The findings from the MNR is that stocking younger fish will lead to better imprinting, ensure that fish can winter over in the rivers, and is better for producing a self sustaining population of fish. Since chinook are managed as a put and take fishery, imprinting and the ability to survice the entire life cycle in the wild are less important.

[porkpie]

The Atlantic program is an utter failure, and has little angler support from my unscientific polling. I've yet to meet an angler who thinks the money spent is worthwhile. I believe it is propped up solely by the MNR and a couple of associations. I am not sure why, but it's a lot of money wasted on someone's pet project.

[fishdawg]

another good read on the subject with key facts

 

http://www.lakeontariounited.com/fishing-hunting/index.php/topic/35074-atlantic-salmon/

[Jon]

Here is some more info on the Atlantic Salmon Monitoring in the Credit:

http://www.glfc.org/lakecom/loc/mgmt_unit/index.html

See Pages 50 - 56 in the 2011 report and Pages 49 - 56 in the 2012 report.

 

Craig - I don't agree that the historic information is irrelevant. Many of the Chinooks showing up every year are wild fish and they wouldn't be around if it wasn't for stocking over the last 30 or 40 years.

 

Jon

[ch312]

time to play devils advocate...

 

salmon dying and nutrients going back into the circle is 100% natural. but, there is nothing natural about salmon carcasses being stripped and dumped anywhere from a couple to hundreds of feet from the riverbanks and salmon carcasses tossed into garbage cans serve no purpose other than stinking up the area. i think educating people about the benefits of leaving the carcass near or in the water would help solve the issue of residents complaining about the smell. the carcasses belong in or near the water. take the roe and leave them there if you're not going to eat it.

 

a ban on roe would definitely help with the carcasses being littered everywhere and would definitely lower the number of fish that are taken. it seems like the majority of people i speak with who are fishing for salmon on the rivers are steelheaders looking for free roe and could care less about salmon as they're only interested in killing one species to catch another. if there were a ban on roe many people would have no reason to target salmon as it seems like most are after roe, not meat. a ban would likely stop greedy people from killing multiple fish to load up on roe and would also curb most poaching as nobody would have a use for the roe the poachers take every year.

 

 

that said, does anyone have a good reason why we're allowed to target these easily caught and snagged spawning fish, yet most other species are off limits when they're spawning in wide open lakes?

 

 

[chessy]

Because by doing so it stimulates more people to fish and buy licences . A lot of these people would not fish for salmon in fall if they could not keep roe or fish .