Gord Pyzer sets the record straight on catch limits

[bl8ant]

Bl8ant: your arguing about keeping fish on a freaking fishing forum......
What I meant by my point, I guess I have to break it down exactly for you, was:

If it was up to people like you we would not be allowed to fish because we need to protect the fish. Your a fisherman right, but if we were not allowed to fish because it upsets people like you that fish are being kept then bye bye fishing, no one is allowed to fish anymore. Get my point now? It has nothing to do with me wanting all the fish for myself. Seems to me like your being the greedy one wanting everyone to put back all their fish they catch so you can have a chance to catch them later.

I fish, I keep fish I put fish back. I care about the future of fisheries as a whole but I still keep some fish to eat. You should try it sometime, they are tastey. i am not going to keep arguin with you, you have your point of view and I have mine, so be it. No need to attack anyone over it.

Sorry to get away from the original topic a bit ontarioactionoutdoors

And well put zippy fx "if you are a responsible fisherman you should be expected to do what's. Right for the area you are fishing"
That about sums it up!

No I am not arguing about keeping fish Fishoholic.
I am arguing specifically and only that everyone should base their decision on whether to keep fish or not on the health of the fishery and it's ability to sustain it's pressure. Further to that point, I am arguing that your self admitted philosophy of deciding to keep fish based on how much money you have invested in your efforts is not only misguided but greedy in nature.

Your rhetoric about not being allowed to fish because it upsets people has nothing to do with me. I am an angler who keeps the odd fish.
I base my decision to keep fish on the health of the fishery, the pressure it receives and the best information that I have on hand provided by professionals I trust.

[Fishoholic]

bl8ant: your point in Bold is bang on and I couldn't agree more, no arguments there!

As for my decision to keep fish, the money I spend is not my sole factor in deciding on keeping fish, I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying. I would never keep a limit of fish out of a lake that I didn't think could handle it just because I spent money to get there but I am not greedy for keeping a limit every now and then. I pay good money to enjoy fishing and part of thy enjoyment is getting the satisfaction of eating my catch. Not everyone is rich, I choose to invest in fishing and like to bring home my catch as a bonus every now and then. Any extra money in the wallet goes a long way. Good topic ontarioactionoutdoors got the debate going between Bl8ant and I!!!

[cprince]

I just wanted to say that when RJ posted the "how did your opening day go" a few weeks back, I had written a huge essay about the American tourists I saw killing huge bass each and every day at the cottage I was staying at, but I deleted the whole thing because I didn't want to hi-jack that post with my negativity and what some would likely see as "sour grapes"...

In context of some threads, it is easy to see some posts in that light.

In the context of this thread however, I think it is a very important question to ask or subject to explore.

Here is the rub though: Biologists who study fish and fish populations are often wrong. The fin clipping of salmon is a great example.

They usually have an opinion based on anecdotal evidence (Same as me right here right now.. anecdotal) . Evidence pointed to is usually a very small sample size in relation to the sheer number of bodies of water in Ontario and species of fish and varying densities of populations who impact these fish.

I am not saying to not listen to them, but what their finding seem to indicate should always be taken with a grain of salt. It should also be revisited or reviewed on a consistent basis and not taken as gospel.

Heresy by a scientist is still heresy. It all needs to be monitored and adjusted as you go along.

[curls]

Interesting topic!

Am I greedy, or disrespecting nature, for having kept 2 walleye caught during a bass tournament last year on Muskrat lake? Not in my opinion. Why? Because there's LOTS in that lake, and, because part of my allowance as an Ontario resident Sports Outdoors Card holder is that I'm allowed to keep not just 2, but more.
The satisfaction of filleting those fish with my son and having a great family meal (the 4 of us), was priceless. If anything, them CONTINUOUSLY asking when I'm going to get more walleye, or eat a bass (NO!), is actually a perfect teaching opportunity for me as a father trying to raise nature-loving children: We cannot eat that much fish too often, or there won't be more to catch next time.
2 times a year, I may fish for food. As a treat for the family and as a teaching opportunity. The rest of the time, it's for the love of the sport and the fresh air.

Now... back in NW Ontario where I'm from, there are hundreds upon thousands of fishermen targeting the same lake, all season long. However, this lake is SO fertile, that the fishing has actually increased in both size and quantity there. It's a big lake, but shallow, so there's forage for the walleye everywhere there.
Drive 10km south and there's a similar but less fertile lake that has been "taken over" by smallies (and GIANTS at that). Nobody fishes that lake anymore - they think the smallies ate all the walleye, but in reality, that lake was completely raped by fishermen taking their (once) legal limit of 6 fish per day, every freaking day. The smallies were always thrown back, so in a few years, it APPEARED as though the smallies decimated the walleye population. Wrong - the smallies were given access to all the food because the walleye were stripped from the lake by overzealous "gimme gimme" walleye fishermen. (* Note: Not all walleye fisherman are overzealous and greedy - but the majority of the population in NW Ontario behave that way and are dead-set on getting their maximum allowed amount before the resource runs out. Sad but true mindset!)

[OutdoorActionOntario]

We all have our own viewpoints and I think it is hugely important for all of us to voice our individual perspectives but also respect those of our fellow fishing friends here.

That being said, this isn't about shaming anyone, it's just a discussion on conservation and preservation of the resources that make Ontario one of the best angling destinations in the world.

[OutdoorActionOntario]

Interesting topic!

Am I greedy, or disrespecting nature, for having kept 2 walleye caught during a bass tournament last year on Muskrat lake? Not in my opinion. Why? Because there's LOTS in that lake, and, because part of my allowance as an Ontario resident Sports Outdoors Card holder is that I'm allowed to keep not just 2, but more.
The satisfaction of filleting those fish with my son and having a great family meal (the 4 of us), was priceless. If anything, them CONTINUOUSLY asking when I'm going to get more walleye, or eat a bass (NO!), is actually a perfect teaching opportunity for me as a father trying to raise nature-loving children: We cannot eat that much fish too often, or there won't be more to catch next time.
2 times a year, I may fish for food. As a treat for the family and as a teaching opportunity. The rest of the time, it's for the love of the sport and the fresh air.

Now... back in NW Ontario where I'm from, there are hundreds upon thousands of fishermen targeting the same lake, all season long. However, this lake is SO fertile, that the fishing has actually increased in both size and quantity there. It's a big lake, but shallow, so there's forage for the walleye everywhere there.
Drive 10km south and there's a similar but less fertile lake that has been "taken over" by smallies (and GIANTS at that). Nobody fishes that lake anymore - they think the smallies ate all the walleye, but in reality, that lake was completely raped by fishermen taking their (once) legal limit of 6 fish per day, every freaking day. The smallies were always thrown back, so in a few years, it APPEARED as though the smallies decimated the walleye population. Wrong - the smallies were given access to all the food because the walleye were stripped from the lake by overzealous "gimme gimme" walleye fishermen. (* Note: Not all walleye fisherman are overzealous and greedy - but the majority of the population in NW Ontario behave that way and are dead-set on getting their maximum allowed amount before the resource runs out. Sad but true mindset!)

There is nothing greedy or disrespectful about anything you wrote whatsoever! As for your comments about the northern fishery, I will take them at your word.

[OutdoorActionOntario]

I just wanted to say that when RJ posted the "how did your opening day go" a few weeks back, I had written a huge essay about the American tourists I saw killing huge bass each and every day at the cottage I was staying at, but I deleted the whole thing because I didn't want to hi-jack that post with my negativity and what some would likely see as "sour grapes"...

In context of some threads, it is easy to see some posts in that light.

In the context of this thread however, I think it is a very important question to ask or subject to explore.

Here is the rub though: Biologists who study fish and fish populations are often wrong. The fin clipping of salmon is a great example.

They usually have an opinion based on anecdotal evidence (Same as me right here right now.. anecdotal) . Evidence pointed to is usually a very small sample size in relation to the sheer number of bodies of water in Ontario and species of fish and varying densities of populations who impact these fish.

I am not saying to not listen to them, but what their finding seem to indicate should always be taken with a grain of salt. It should also be revisited or reviewed on a consistent basis and not taken as gospel.

Heresy by a scientist is still heresy. It all needs to be monitored and adjusted as you go along.

HAHA - hey, that sour grapes thing wasn't towards you CPRINCE (inside joke on a private message discussion we had last week.)

I agree with everything you wrote to a degree, but I still listen very closely to what someone like a Dr. Pyzer or Dr. Bruce Tufts has to say about fish biology, conservation and preservation, and fisheries and their general management.

Canada is actually VERY luck to have some genius level fish researchers who not only study the species but also like to bend their rods from time to time as well, which I think gives them a very balanced understanding of the resources in question.

[fatluke]

This post could easily go offside but I like the healthy and non insulting debates happening.

Keep it clean boyz, this is a good topic and I don't want to have to lock or moderate it.

[bradford2]

Enjoying what this planet has to offer is no more an argument to harvest fish than it is an argument for catch and release.

Um, it kind of is, if you like to eat some of the fish that you catch, which I gather from the steam coming from your ears that you must not

It's a funny topic kindof. There are many many people out there who would ban catch and release fishing but allow fishing for harvest.

The reality is that the people doing the most damage will never read this or any other internet article on the subject.

[mb_fishing]

So what if any lesson/s are to be learned from our neighbours down south? Fishing pressure is magnified 10 fold over many states. What have they learned? Can we benefit from any oversights or mistakes? Have they implemented programs that have allowed fish resources to rebound? If anyone has thoughts around this it would be interesting to hear.

[Supernova224]

The reality is that the people doing the most damage will never read this or any other internet article on the subject.

Great point Bradford2, it's worth noting that while the people discussing it here may have different opinions, the fact that it's being discussed and debated is a good thing.

[fishin mission]

I'm greedy and im going fishing with Brad !!

[riverdog]

The reality is that the people doing the most damage will never read this or any other internet article on the subject.

Great point Bradford2, it's worth noting that while the people discussing it here may have different opinions, the fact that it's being discussed and debated is a good thing.

If we could just get a "Like or dislike" button on threads/posts things would be much more convenient lol! I would "Like" both of these & a couple others on page 1.

[fatluke]

If we could just get a "Like or dislike" button on threads/posts things would be much more convenient lol! I would "Like" both of these & a couple others on page 1.

I can make that happen...

Will add it to my to do list.

[Out4trout]

Great article by Pyzer.

Those tasked with setting the limits primarily rely on knowledge provided by SLIN and broad scale netting surveys etc. Creel surveys if available. Then the limits are applied zone wide, so the limits don't generally reflect a specific waterbody.

It is fact that those fishing a specific waterbody consistently will have a better handle on the state of the fishery than a once in 5 years broad scale survey can provide. Armed with the personal knowledge and experience we have of a specific waterbody, we are in a good position to personally choose what to keep, how often and how many, under or at the limit.

It ought to be a conscience driven decision, the future of the sport are dependant on our personal ethics.