Catch Limits imposed on Sun Fish

[almontefisher]

You know through all this great conversation I have noticed rfunfarm has kept a cool head and has done a great job of keeping this resonable. We are bashing Americans on here and that should not be. You are making it sound like every American is like this...I got news for you we Canadians are a bigger culprit then the Americans

[RJ]

We are bashing Americans on here and that should not be. You are making it sound like every American is like this... for you

I'd bash anyone who feels the need to keep hundreds or thousands of fish.....it's unneccesary and senseless.....and this is not a "bash the Americans post".....it's about peoples opinions on a panfish limit....to which I am entitled to my opinion that one is needed....

RJ

[riverdog]

[quote="almontefisher"]You know through all this great conversation I have noticed rfunfarm has kept a cool head and has done a great job of keeping this resonable. We are bashing Americans on here and that should not be. You are making it sound like every American is like this...I got news for you we Canadians are a bigger culprit then the Americans[/quote]

I don't see were this has become Americain bashing, if anything rfunfarm has been badgering in some of his posts the silly happy face icons he includes must be what your refering to when you say he's kept his cool. Nobody has said its the Americans fault that panfish limits have been imposed. I'm sure the recent surge of road side fishing gangs has had something to do with it, along with some science on the ministry part.The original comment was that CANADAIN fish lodge operators last year fought a succesfull battle not to have panfish limits in place becuase they said the would lose American customers (read the article). It was rfunfarm that couldn't believe Americans would come here to fish panfish and after the article was posted, he still continues to badger or discount the facts. In closing Almotefisher I happen to be a dual citzen of Canada and the USA, 80% of my family live in the USA. I hold a valid passpost for both countries and SIN card and socail security card and have worked on both sides of the border. So now here is some real life experience for ya, when fishing with my American relatives who live in Ogdensburg NY,Albany NY,Utica NY, Bingimton NY, ST.Petes FL my mothers family is originally from Booneville NY the thought of fishing for sport makes no sense to them. So the ones in Ogedensburg across the river from me don't get taken to honey holes on the river for panfish for fear they would come everyday and clean it out and yes theres a ton of local guys that would do the same! But in closing my orginal post was about Canadain fishing lodge operators and there succesfull battle last year not to have panfish limits imposed, not to bash Americans here is some smiliy faces for ya

[almontefisher]

Wow riverdog not how my post was intended at all...I was just trying to keep this thread about panfish limits not a Canadian Amercian war of words...No offense was meant just was trying to be a mediator before this got out of control. I really don't care if it is Americans or Canadians just keeping this about what it was originally intended...Panfish limits..good or bad??? Sorry if I offended you it was never my intention

[almontefisher]

I am very surprised at the developing results of the Panfish Survey. I fish panfish a lot, and have no objection to a 50 fish limit. In fact I can't imagine one person keeping more fish than that. I believe one of the main reasons behind this limit is to prevent a very small number of anglers from keeping literally 1000's of fish and potentially reduing the ability for others to share in the resource.
Cheers,
LK

Just so people remember what this was actually for and no it was not about lodges or the such wanting no restriction...Lonnie had a poll to see what people thought of this and I think we need to get back on track with this. Lonnie posted one of the best threads on here latley and lets not ruin it. Keep this on track guys, it's a good one.

[valley_boy]

A limit of fifty WOULD be liberal in some instances, and WOULD be excessive in others, and IS restrictive and ill-advised, in my view, in still others. My argument (stated several times and in various ways) is that sunfish in many of our larger lakes are out of balance and need to be reduced in number. The most effective way to do that is by angling.

Doug

To me this is the issue. The MNR is to underfunded to find exactly which lakes can support this kind of harvest and which lakes can't, so to avoid a serious problem in lakes that cant support a harvest of over 50 fish, the make it the same for the entire management zone. I agree that this is not ideal but I would rather see a few lakes with to many than a few with a devastated population!

[rfunfarm]

You know through all this great conversation I have noticed rfunfarm has kept a cool head and has done a great job of keeping this resonable. We are bashing Americans on here and that should not be. You are making it sound like every American is like this...I got news for you we Canadians are a bigger culprit then the Americans

Thank You Almontefisher--YOU get it. The humor is over the EXAGERATION that Americans are driving "Freezer Trucks" to Canada for their family vacation. Each lake needs to be investigated on its own as to which regulations would be best. General rules do NOT provide the best answer. I am NOT a rocket scientist but do have some knowledge of this subject as I am a retired Fish Biologist.Smiley faces are now added for effect. Never "BASH" the opposing opinion, They might know something you don't.

[sunrisebait]

panfish are not the problem limits are not the problem.The problem is the munipulation of the resoures of the province by the ministry that was created to protect them .rather than putting the monies generated by hunting and fishing back into the resource through agressive stocking programs to recharge and enhance the fishery the money is absorbed by the paper shufflers and is used my them to come up with non science based desicions like putting limits on panfish in the hope that more anglers will be drawn to fishing them thus taking the pressure off other species such as walleye pike bass and the end result they can continue to use the perseption of manageing without actually doing anything at all

[RJ]

The humor is over the EXAGERATION that Americans are driving "Freezer Trucks" to Canada for their family vacation.

I really wish I was exagerating.....and DO NOT confuse this with vacationing....what's going on has nothing to do with "vacationing"...

Ah well....rfunfarm is now a fish biologist....I guess he's right....

[Relic]

I am a retired Fish Biologist

And I am retired space astronaut

For someone that is an “alleged” retired “Fish Biologist” (not “fisheries” but fish) Your comments through this entire thread seem to be rather un-educated, arrogant and self serving.

There is absolutely no reason for anyone to need to keep more than 50 of the species’ in question. You say you come for family trips and 50 fish would not be worth it. Assuming your family is of the average size, 2 adults, 2 children that equates to 200 fish. If you are complaining about only being able to keep 200 fish, then your statements are simply out of greed.

It’s really sad, greed seems to get the better of most folks.
Pity our MNR, trying to be a little proactive and they get dragged across the coals by lodge owners, businesses, our own government and non-residents.

Ask yourselves this – would I rather of 200 fish today tomorrow and the next??? or Would I rather have 25 fish everyday for the rest of my days.

An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure???

[Doug]

We were doing pretty well here, with passionate but civil discourse.

Too bad some of the folks posting feel the need to make their comments personal.

Now I see what Bobber was talking about with the sliding scale of civility on the board. I think this is very sad. People should be able to have a healthy discussion and agree to disagree if they have opposing viewpoints, without insulting each other.

I think I have been respectful of people who do not agree with my point of view, and I believe that my views have also been granted respect from those folks whose viewpoint is diametrically opposite from mine. That is a good healthy discussion. A mud-slinging match is NOT helpful in our angling community's attempts to understand the issues that confront us.

So, fellow forum members, can we all please take a deep breath, and get back to the topic, without all the trash-talking? I for one think this is an absolutely vital thing to discuss amongst ourselves, with a view to the long-term preservation of our sport.

You may now put the soap-box away, I am finished with it.

Doug

[Eli]

I am a retired Fish Biologist

And I am retired space astronaut

For someone that is an “alleged” retired “Fish Biologist” (not “fisheries” but fish) Your comments through this entire thread seem to be rather un-educated, arrogant and self serving.

There is absolutely no reason for anyone to need to keep more than 50 of the species’ in question. You say you come for family trips and 50 fish would not be worth it. Assuming your family is of the average size, 2 adults, 2 children that equates to 200 fish. If you are complaining about only being able to keep 200 fish, then your statements are simply out of greed.

It’s really sad, greed seems to get the better of most folks.
Pity our MNR, trying to be a little proactive and they get dragged across the coals by lodge owners, businesses, our own government and non-residents.

Ask yourselves this – would I rather of 200 fish today tomorrow and the next??? or Would I rather have 25 fish everyday for the rest of my days.

An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure???

hear hear!

[almontefisher]

I am a retired Fish Biologist

How did I become a retired fish Biologist....Wish someone would have told me this. I am still getting up and going to my job every day If I am retired well dam it I will be out fishing everyday

[g unis]

zone 19 southern ont has panfish limlits also. at its introduction i was against. thinking things out, i have to agree 50 yellow perch or 35 crappies is enough to clean. also it introduces the thought to go out and do it all over again after a fish fry. . at one time there was no law on catching and selling yellow perch to processers. after abuse the laws were changed... . personally i would prefer to see folks to be allowed 2 limits to be possesion in their freezers. how many have a stock of fillets put away for the winter months.

[DropShotr]

Lots of interesting points here. It would be nice to hear from some lodge owners on this. I somehow feel they are getting the brunt of the blame unfairly. Let's face it guys. Good fishing=full cabins. Bad fishing=FOR SALE: Beautiful fishing lodge on Lake....
We see lodge owners being pro-active on C&R, barbless etc. I believe if there was an issue with overfishing sunnys somewhere we'd be hearing the lodge owners complaints in OOD magazine.

I believe perch and crappie need further protection in some bodies of water. I believe sunnys are underutilized in most bodies of water. I believe in daily limits for each individual species of panfish. At the same time I believe these limits should be lake/river specific.

I also believe that tourists with a 1yr. non res license that are staying at an outfitter/camp/lodge etc. should be allowed to bring back more than one days catch with respect to the species.

When we vacationed on Rice Lake I saw serious sunny fisherman. Rice lake is a fish factory. These people took a lot of fish each year with complete respect and compliance to the regulations. That being said Rice lake seems to have a healthy biomass and does not suffer from the yearly onslaught of all the tourist sunny fisherman.
Their vacation is theirs, yours is yours. Neither has the right to judge the merits of each others week.


My 2 cents,

DropShot'r