Catch Limits imposed on Sun Fish
-
rfunfarm
I own a pond here in PA--The Sunfish can easily over take the pond if allowed--Each spring I have a Kids fishing contest in which the 14 & under group are encouraged to catch & keep all the Sunnies they can. We remove several hundred each year this way. The LM population has been thriving since this was started. Plenty of the sunnies are left to provide food for their bigger cousins. The kids win prizes & we also "fry up some" for lunch at the Tourney. Bass must be C&R only. Unless the "lake " is very small, I see no need for limits on these guys.
-
riverdog
- Silver Participant
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:25 am
- Location: Prescott Ont.
- Contact:
A lot of fishing lodge operators complained last year that if a limit was imposed on panfish they would lose their American customers. The problem is that with the growing # of fishing folks here in Ontario and the growing catch all, keep all folks that you see fishing at any road side spot the can squeeze into we need limits. If Americans don't want to come due to the fact the can only keep 50 panfish than so be it.
-
rfunfarm
Are their really Americans that would drive up north & pay to stay at a lodge-FOR SUNNIES???riverdog wrote:A lot of fishing lodge operators complained last year that if a limit was imposed on panfish they would lose their American customers. The problem is that with the growing # of fishing folks here in Ontario and the growing catch all, keep all folks that you see fishing at any road side spot the can squeeze into we need limits. If Americans don't want to come due to the fact the can only keep 50 panfish than so be it.
-
Prairieboy
- Bronze Participant
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:40 pm
- Location: Stittsville
Maybe not but there is one "Chillin Stittsvillan" right here waiting for someone to tell me where I can catch some jumbosAre their really Americans that would drive up north & pay to stay at a lodge-FOR SUNNIES???
I just picked up 1000 maggies from Bits and Baits and want to use em up!
Cheers,
Prairieboy
Depending on where you are the 50 fish limit is important.....Speaking of Loughborough Lake has anyone been down there at the division street bridge during the spring season? I used to go down there but cant find a spot to stand and cast among all the huge coolers and five gallon pails FULL of fish. It used to be a great crappie spot but not so much anymore.
Doug,
I haven't noticed and definitely would be concerned as you are. Could it have anything to do with the zebra muscles? Maybe it has pushed the bass deeper due to increased sunlight, visibility, and lack of cover? I do know the lakers like the sunny's though. :D
Blake
Doug,
I haven't noticed and definitely would be concerned as you are. Could it have anything to do with the zebra muscles? Maybe it has pushed the bass deeper due to increased sunlight, visibility, and lack of cover? I do know the lakers like the sunny's though. :D
Blake
I agree with a 50 fish limit. Panfish serve the purpose of keeping predator populations in line with prey, as well as being an important food source to larger predators.
As much as we enjoy catching those lunkers, a body of water that has lots of lunkers and no small fish is a very unhealthy body of water.
As much as we enjoy catching those lunkers, a body of water that has lots of lunkers and no small fish is a very unhealthy body of water.
You would not believe the numbers if you saw them.......someday I hope this all comes out in the wash and the MNR deals with this properly the way they did in the new regs......I do hope the consultations that have gone on make the appropriate change and the regulation is returned....rfunfarm wrote: Are their really Americans that would drive up north & pay to stay at a lodge-FOR SUNNIES???
Back to orrsey.........the observation I related pre-dates the zebra mussels by a number of years. We first saw the zebras about five years ago now, and reported it to the MNR local office. They did not at that time have confirmation that the zebras were in Loughborough, but they did expect it. 
I also do not go to the Loughborough bridge in springtime any more, it is wayyyy too crowded as you mention. We did quite well in the boat this spring for crappies on the lake, and in fact found a new honey hole that coughed up a dozen nice fish most days. Funny enough, that had been one of our favourite bluegill spots a number of years ago......
Doug
PS) If tourists are taking big loads of sunfish out of these lakes, I say GOOD FOR THEM. Keeps the pressure off the bass........ I mean, really, if the sunfish are there by the millions (which is the case), then even tens of thousands removed do not impact the sunfish population and DO impact in a positive way the bass population. This I think is the big picture that we need to keep our eyes on.
I also do not go to the Loughborough bridge in springtime any more, it is wayyyy too crowded as you mention. We did quite well in the boat this spring for crappies on the lake, and in fact found a new honey hole that coughed up a dozen nice fish most days.
Funny enough, that had been one of our favourite bluegill spots a number of years ago......Doug
PS) If tourists are taking big loads of sunfish out of these lakes, I say GOOD FOR THEM. Keeps the pressure off the bass........ I mean, really, if the sunfish are there by the millions (which is the case), then even tens of thousands removed do not impact the sunfish population and DO impact in a positive way the bass population. This I think is the big picture that we need to keep our eyes on.
PS) Back to canmoore, who wrote:
I agree with a 50 fish limit. Panfish serve the purpose of keeping predator populations in line with prey, as well as being an important food source to larger predators.
As much as we enjoy catching those lunkers, a body of water that has lots of lunkers and no small fish is a very unhealthy body of water.
Your post clearly speaks about BALANCE, and that is my exact point. Right now there is an observed imbalance in the lakes in this area, with far too many sunfish for the carrying capacity of the water. For example, most of the lake trout (top predator) caught in Loughborough last winter had large heads and skinny bodies, ie they were slowly starving. SOMETHING is eating the food that the lakers usually eat. And it was reported to me by several anglers that quite a few lakers they kept had sunfish in their stomachs. In the past, this would not have been the case, since sunfish are not a preferred forage for lakers and typically inhabit shallower depths than would be the norm for lakers. (Of course, lakers do come into the shallows in winter, but you get the idea.)
So I surely agree that a lake with a preponderance of large fish is not a healthy body of water, but that just is not the case in any lake here of which I am aware.
Sorry for sounding like a broken record, but I do think it is important for us anglers to understand the ACTUAL situation, not a theoretical one.
Best regards,
Doug
I agree with a 50 fish limit. Panfish serve the purpose of keeping predator populations in line with prey, as well as being an important food source to larger predators.
As much as we enjoy catching those lunkers, a body of water that has lots of lunkers and no small fish is a very unhealthy body of water.
Your post clearly speaks about BALANCE, and that is my exact point. Right now there is an observed imbalance in the lakes in this area, with far too many sunfish for the carrying capacity of the water. For example, most of the lake trout (top predator) caught in Loughborough last winter had large heads and skinny bodies, ie they were slowly starving. SOMETHING is eating the food that the lakers usually eat. And it was reported to me by several anglers that quite a few lakers they kept had sunfish in their stomachs. In the past, this would not have been the case, since sunfish are not a preferred forage for lakers and typically inhabit shallower depths than would be the norm for lakers. (Of course, lakers do come into the shallows in winter, but you get the idea.)
So I surely agree that a lake with a preponderance of large fish is not a healthy body of water, but that just is not the case in any lake here of which I am aware.
Sorry for sounding like a broken record, but I do think it is important for us anglers to understand the ACTUAL situation, not a theoretical one.
Best regards,
Doug
Doug,
Your thinking on the Panfish population is a curious one to me....take no offence to this but more healthy discussion than anything....
The Lakers are slowly starving?...and the sunfish are to blame?....yet they are eating the sunfish......yet you want to protect the bass that are likely actually eating the lakers forage base in the first place....sorry but to quote your own words here...."I do think it is important for us anglers to understand the ACTUAL situation, not a theoretical one"
Where are you getting your Numbers stats from as well?....Millions?
The MNR obviously had concerns over the forage base population (ie sunfish) when they put that reg in place....it certainly didn't come out of nowhere.....but like it did in Quinte, local businesses put the pressure on the MNR to lighten it so the overharvesting could continue....to "save" their business....instead of being shortsighted these businesses should be promoting the great bass fishery instead....
Everyone gets so upset about "white buckets".....a "white bucket" is nothing compared to what has been going on in some of those lakes that cater to this....
And to anyone that says to themselves..."Pfft....they're only sunfish"....it all plays a part fellas.....many of your favorite sportfish rely on them for forage...
Advocating or supporting people keeping hundreds or thousands of fish will end up in time.....in my opinion....being a big mistake.....
RJ
Your thinking on the Panfish population is a curious one to me....take no offence to this but more healthy discussion than anything....
The Lakers are slowly starving?...and the sunfish are to blame?....yet they are eating the sunfish......yet you want to protect the bass that are likely actually eating the lakers forage base in the first place....sorry but to quote your own words here...."I do think it is important for us anglers to understand the ACTUAL situation, not a theoretical one"
Where are you getting your Numbers stats from as well?....Millions?
The MNR obviously had concerns over the forage base population (ie sunfish) when they put that reg in place....it certainly didn't come out of nowhere.....but like it did in Quinte, local businesses put the pressure on the MNR to lighten it so the overharvesting could continue....to "save" their business....instead of being shortsighted these businesses should be promoting the great bass fishery instead....
Everyone gets so upset about "white buckets".....a "white bucket" is nothing compared to what has been going on in some of those lakes that cater to this....
And to anyone that says to themselves..."Pfft....they're only sunfish"....it all plays a part fellas.....many of your favorite sportfish rely on them for forage...
Advocating or supporting people keeping hundreds or thousands of fish will end up in time.....in my opinion....being a big mistake.....
RJ
Actually warmouth are not the same as rock bass at least according to the Royal Ontario Museum and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.Doug wrote:What an extremely INTERESTING thread!
It would appear that "warmouth" is the correct term for rock bass, and that therefore rock bass is a sunfish according to the MNR. I am willing to bet a tidy sum of money that our local COs did not know that.........
So anyways, once I read the post a few back in this thread by Todd B. I said to myself, "What on earth is a warmouth?" And although it is not 100% clear in all of the references, it does look like the fish that I have called a rock bass for a VERY long time would be called a warmouth in some parts of the world. Including, perhaps, the Ontario Fishing Regulations!
Doug
http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?d ... 86&lang=en
Best Wishes: Rick
back to RJ...........healthy discussion is GOOD.
In Loughborough Lake to which I was referring some of the time here and specifically about the lakers starving, yes of course some of the forage base is being eaten by bass (and crappies, perch, great blue herons, snapping turtles, etc).
I am not a biologist but have been reading about this stuff for a very long time, and the consensus seems to be that any body of water has a maximum carrying capacity, or biomass, that it can support. If the biomass of the lake is predominantly sunfish, the food available will be consumed in large part by sunfish. For sure, sunfish are also eaten by top predators, but this is not a preferred forage for lakers, and most bass do not routinely eat sunfish bigger than "x" (pick your size). It is about BALANCE.
I do not know why the MNR imposed, and then removed, a limit, but given my observations of that department it is entirely possible that it was NOT a science-based decision to put the limit in place, or to remove it. Look at the same MNR that thought there were plenty of deer around this year, issued many extra tags, and were caught flat-footed when they determined that in fact we had a pretty severe winter last year with a lot of deer mortality. Extra tags should NOT have been available in a number of Eastern Ontario WMUs.
It sounds to me like you have personally witnessed a pretty dreadful slaughter of panfish somewhere, and that has reinforced your views on this subject. And we may be at the point where we have to accept area-wide regulations that make ZERO sense across an area, in order to protect a given lake or region that should have its own regulations. As somebody noted in this post or elsewhere, we do not have nearly enough COs in this province to enforce the fish and game laws in any adequate manner, and the result has been pretty predictable.........
Doug
In Loughborough Lake to which I was referring some of the time here and specifically about the lakers starving, yes of course some of the forage base is being eaten by bass (and crappies, perch, great blue herons, snapping turtles, etc).
I am not a biologist but have been reading about this stuff for a very long time, and the consensus seems to be that any body of water has a maximum carrying capacity, or biomass, that it can support. If the biomass of the lake is predominantly sunfish, the food available will be consumed in large part by sunfish. For sure, sunfish are also eaten by top predators, but this is not a preferred forage for lakers, and most bass do not routinely eat sunfish bigger than "x" (pick your size). It is about BALANCE.
I do not know why the MNR imposed, and then removed, a limit, but given my observations of that department it is entirely possible that it was NOT a science-based decision to put the limit in place, or to remove it. Look at the same MNR that thought there were plenty of deer around this year, issued many extra tags, and were caught flat-footed when they determined that in fact we had a pretty severe winter last year with a lot of deer mortality. Extra tags should NOT have been available in a number of Eastern Ontario WMUs.
It sounds to me like you have personally witnessed a pretty dreadful slaughter of panfish somewhere, and that has reinforced your views on this subject. And we may be at the point where we have to accept area-wide regulations that make ZERO sense across an area, in order to protect a given lake or region that should have its own regulations. As somebody noted in this post or elsewhere, we do not have nearly enough COs in this province to enforce the fish and game laws in any adequate manner, and the result has been pretty predictable.........
Doug
back to woodsman:
THANKS!!!!
As I said, it was not 100% clear to me, but a lot of the sites I looked at (mostly USA state fisheries type stuff) showed pictures of warmouth that look like rock bass (especially that red eye), and several of them noted that common names for warmouth included rock bass.
Todd B also sent me a note to the effect that the genus for the two species is different.
So anyways like I said before, I am always learning new stuff!
Doug
THANKS!!!!
As I said, it was not 100% clear to me, but a lot of the sites I looked at (mostly USA state fisheries type stuff) showed pictures of warmouth that look like rock bass (especially that red eye), and several of them noted that common names for warmouth included rock bass.
Todd B also sent me a note to the effect that the genus for the two species is different.
So anyways like I said before, I am always learning new stuff!
Doug
Doug, lakes are ecosystems, and like all ecosystems every organism plays its part. When you remove any one of those parts you change the ecosystem, which effects all organisms in that ecosystem.Doug wrote:Your post clearly speaks about BALANCE, and that is my exact point. Right now there is an observed imbalance in the lakes in this area, with far too many sunfish for the carrying capacity of the water. For example, most of the lake trout (top predator) caught in Loughborough last winter had large heads and skinny bodies, ie they were slowly starving. SOMETHING is eating the food that the lakers usually eat. And it was reported to me by several anglers that quite a few lakers they kept had sunfish in their stomachs. In the past, this would not have been the case, since sunfish are not a preferred forage for lakers and typically inhabit shallower depths than would be the norm for lakers. (Of course, lakers do come into the shallows in winter, but you get the idea.)
So I surely agree that a lake with a preponderance of large fish is not a healthy body of water, but that just is not the case in any lake here of which I am aware.
Sorry for sounding like a broken record, but I do think it is important for us anglers to understand the ACTUAL situation, not a theoretical one.
Best regards,
Doug
Panfish and Lake trout have differing places in an ecosystem. Because panfish are smaller and more abundant, more organisms in an ecosystem rely on them for sustenance. For example, birds, mammals, reptiles, other fish feed on panfish. In turn Panfish feed on invertibrates, smaller fish and the eggs of other species.
Predatory fish such as Pike and Lake trout serve the purpose to keep panfish populations in check.
If you remove panfish from an ecosystem, you are not going to have more larger fish. You are going to have no fish! because panfish are apart of the base in an ecosystem that supports larger predatory fish to exist!