I'm curious to know why you feel this way...? Why should they be allowed more than everyone else?DropShot'r wrote: 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.
Catch Limits imposed on Sun Fish
-
DropShotr
- Gold Participant
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:06 am
- Location: At home....waiting for bass season.
That's a fair question. Maybe a bit more clarification was needed. I was leaning more towards some of the underutilized panfish species when I made that statement. I also feel res licence holders should be able to have more than one days catch in the freezer.Eli wrote: I'm curious to know why you feel this way...? Why should they be allowed more than everyone else?
I still see no evidence that we are on the verge of having panfish going the way of the cod.
I believe in a slot limit for bass (only one bass over x number of inches). I also feel we should have "trophy fishing" or C&R only between the closure and opening of regular bass season.
DropShot'r
While I'd agree some lodge owners may be on board with that....in this case it was the opposite.....the MNR had imposed limits...and the resort owners cried to their MP about it affecting their business....thus the reversal of that new reg....DropShot'r wrote: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 think that one of the reasons for the possession limits to include fish in the freezer is to try to prevent people from running commercial fish sales operations out of their homes.
If you allow year round bass fishing, even only C&R, you run into problems during the spawning season. Removal of a male from the nest allows the panfish to come in and eat the eggs or the young bass. It probably explains why a previous poster noted the increase in sport fish populations when the panfish population in a lake was reduced. Fewer pannies resulted on more sport fish reaching maturity.
I am in full support of trophy waters, however. I'd love to see more waters designated as no kill zones, barbless hooks only, no live bait, and so on. (Of course, fly fishing only would have to be the priority on the list!!!)
There really should be no problem with possession limits on panfish. It should be just another part of maintaining a sustainable fishery for the future.
If you allow year round bass fishing, even only C&R, you run into problems during the spawning season. Removal of a male from the nest allows the panfish to come in and eat the eggs or the young bass. It probably explains why a previous poster noted the increase in sport fish populations when the panfish population in a lake was reduced. Fewer pannies resulted on more sport fish reaching maturity.
I am in full support of trophy waters, however. I'd love to see more waters designated as no kill zones, barbless hooks only, no live bait, and so on. (Of course, fly fishing only would have to be the priority on the list!!!)
There really should be no problem with possession limits on panfish. It should be just another part of maintaining a sustainable fishery for the future.
Time's fun when you're having flies.
-
DropShotr
- Gold Participant
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:06 am
- Location: At home....waiting for bass season.
RJ, if you can show me scientific studies that show the panfish populations were being damaged by the "old" regs and new regs were required......I'm with ya!RJ wrote: While I'd agree some lodge owners may be on board with that....in this case it was the opposite.....the MNR had imposed limits...and the resort owners cried to their MP about it affecting their business....thus the reversal of that new reg....
However....I some how feel the same MNR methodology that was used on the fishing regs for panfish was the same MNR methodology used in the elimination of the spring bear hunt.
Thank you! Panfish eating young and fry would be a problem if the panfish populations were too high.Fishboy wrote: If you allow year round bass fishing, even only C&R, you run into problems during the spawning season. Removal of a male from the nest allows the panfish to come in and eat the eggs or the young bass. It probably explains why a previous poster noted the increase in sport fish populations when the panfish population in a lake was reduced. Fewer pannies resulted on more sport fish reaching maturity.
Again I require scientific proof that C & R will be bad for bass populations. There are numerous states that have had C & R bass fishing for many years with no noticeable damage to bass stocks. But then, panfishing is far more popular in those states too.
Again, I'm mostly talking about sunnys and rockies. I believe perch and crappie need more agressive regs including commercial fishing.
DropShot'r
DropShot`r,DropShot'r wrote: Thank you! Panfish eating young and fry would be a problem if the panfish populations were too high.
Again I require scientific proof that C & R will be bad for bass populations. There are numerous states that have had C & R bass fishing for many years with no noticeable damage to bass stocks. But then, panfishing is far more popular in those states too.
DropShot'r
Just a heads up that there has been some scientific research on the effects of C&R on spawning bass. Dr. Cooke from the Cooke Lab (Carleton U.) gave a talk on C&R to the Ottawa Flyfishers Society in the fall. One of the sub-topics was the corrolation between the handling time of a C&R bass and the time it takes for it to return to its nest. Their research showed that anything other than an immediate release, in the water would result in the bass sulking (sometimes up to 5 mins) before returning to its nest. It`s pretty safe to say that its next would be decimated by predatory panfish in that amount of time.
Personally, I`d be all for the bass regs that they`ve instituted in NY, namely C&R in the spring, closed during the spawn and then open for the remainder of the sesaon.
-
MichaelVandenberg
- Silver Participant
- Posts: 736
- Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 9:44 am
- Location: Ontario
Wow what a read. Haven't been on the board for a while and saw the poll and this thread and had to read it.
There is a lot of good discuss here. I was recently provided some specific information on this topic and it is very clear who also has this information and who doesn't.
I tried some searches to see if I could find this information but this information is not publicily available. I wish it was public as I think it might change some opinions. With that said, most of this information has been sprinkled throughout this thread.
Cheers,
Mike
There is a lot of good discuss here. I was recently provided some specific information on this topic and it is very clear who also has this information and who doesn't.
I tried some searches to see if I could find this information but this information is not publicily available. I wish it was public as I think it might change some opinions. With that said, most of this information has been sprinkled throughout this thread.
Cheers,
Mike
This discussion has been very thought-provoking for me, as I hope it has been for others.
I have been pondering the idea of people transporting large numbers of fillets, and particularly large numbers of frozen fillets - for example via freezer trucks or whatever. Clearly, anybody keeping truckfuls of fish is raping the resource, and also (almost certainly) not eating the fish themselves, in other words this would be an unregulated commercial fishery.
Regardless of whether an angler is a resident or a non-resident, and regardless of whether the fishing trip lasted a few hours or a few weeks, all persons must comply with a few rules, for example not allowing edible fish to spoil. So if I go to a lake and decide that I am going to keep a zillion sunfish today, there is also a rule that I must respect if I go to a lodge for a week, keep a zillion sunfish and freeze them. That is, a CO must be able to determine what and how many fish I have in my possession. Here is the applicable wording from the OMNR website:
Transporting Sport Fish in Ontario
Anglers need to ensure they are transporting fish in compliance with the regulations, which are designed to protect fisheries resources. The fish that you catch and keep may be cleaned. However, please remember that fish taken from waterbodies where size limits are in effect must be readily measurable at all times, unless the fish are:
Being prepared for immediate consumption
Prepared at an overnight accommodation for storage
Being transported on the water from a temporary overnight accommodation to your residence and you are not engaged in sport fishing
Being transported overland.
In addition, when packaging fish you must ensure that a Conservation Officer can easily determine:
The number of fish in your possession
The species of fish in your possession.
When Packaging Fish, Anglers Should:
Leave a large patch of the skin on all fillets for identification;
Pack or freeze fish separately and flat so that they can be counted and identified (clear plastic bags or clear plastic wrap is preferred).
Surely an angler who is travelling with a few hundred sunfish (or more) does not have them individually wrapped and therefore identifiable???
In other words, for those who abuse the resource, there is a regulation that allows the COs to punish that abuse. Or is this not happening either????????
Doug
I have been pondering the idea of people transporting large numbers of fillets, and particularly large numbers of frozen fillets - for example via freezer trucks or whatever. Clearly, anybody keeping truckfuls of fish is raping the resource, and also (almost certainly) not eating the fish themselves, in other words this would be an unregulated commercial fishery.
Regardless of whether an angler is a resident or a non-resident, and regardless of whether the fishing trip lasted a few hours or a few weeks, all persons must comply with a few rules, for example not allowing edible fish to spoil. So if I go to a lake and decide that I am going to keep a zillion sunfish today, there is also a rule that I must respect if I go to a lodge for a week, keep a zillion sunfish and freeze them. That is, a CO must be able to determine what and how many fish I have in my possession. Here is the applicable wording from the OMNR website:
Transporting Sport Fish in Ontario
Anglers need to ensure they are transporting fish in compliance with the regulations, which are designed to protect fisheries resources. The fish that you catch and keep may be cleaned. However, please remember that fish taken from waterbodies where size limits are in effect must be readily measurable at all times, unless the fish are:
Being prepared for immediate consumption
Prepared at an overnight accommodation for storage
Being transported on the water from a temporary overnight accommodation to your residence and you are not engaged in sport fishing
Being transported overland.
In addition, when packaging fish you must ensure that a Conservation Officer can easily determine:
The number of fish in your possession
The species of fish in your possession.
When Packaging Fish, Anglers Should:
Leave a large patch of the skin on all fillets for identification;
Pack or freeze fish separately and flat so that they can be counted and identified (clear plastic bags or clear plastic wrap is preferred).
Surely an angler who is travelling with a few hundred sunfish (or more) does not have them individually wrapped and therefore identifiable???
In other words, for those who abuse the resource, there is a regulation that allows the COs to punish that abuse. Or is this not happening either????????
Doug
-
Bass Addict
- Diamond Participant
- Posts: 4536
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 4:47 pm
- Location: I'm keeping an EYE on Fish-Hawk
Great discussions and thanks for all those that fed in. Just one point to respond to the notion of having to prove a problem exists before acting.
I don’t think our panfish fisheries should collapse before we decide they are worth protecting.
You just have to look south of the border to find all kinds of examples where panfish populations have suffered due to fishing pressure.
I’ve heard of examples where limits have been reduced to as low as 5 fish (with length limits) in an effort to rehabilitate panfish populations. They are simply fighting to once again produce fish > 6". Biologists from states such as Penn, Minn, Wisc, New York, and Ohio describe some of their panfish populations as "potato chip" fisheries with no fish present over >4 ".
I could only speculate that resource managers tried their best to prevent it, but were overwhelmed by the burden of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the fishery would collapse. (a test which nobody can satisfy).
My vote goes to OMNR who is fighting to sustain, and perhaps even improve present day fishing conditions. Just using Rice Lake as an example; I can only dream of finding a place that can produce sunfish in the size and quantity I remember catching there as a kid.
I don’t think our panfish fisheries should collapse before we decide they are worth protecting.
You just have to look south of the border to find all kinds of examples where panfish populations have suffered due to fishing pressure.
I’ve heard of examples where limits have been reduced to as low as 5 fish (with length limits) in an effort to rehabilitate panfish populations. They are simply fighting to once again produce fish > 6". Biologists from states such as Penn, Minn, Wisc, New York, and Ohio describe some of their panfish populations as "potato chip" fisheries with no fish present over >4 ".
I could only speculate that resource managers tried their best to prevent it, but were overwhelmed by the burden of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the fishery would collapse. (a test which nobody can satisfy).
My vote goes to OMNR who is fighting to sustain, and perhaps even improve present day fishing conditions. Just using Rice Lake as an example; I can only dream of finding a place that can produce sunfish in the size and quantity I remember catching there as a kid.
-
Lunker Larry
- Bronze Participant
- Posts: 463
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:25 pm
- Location: Ottawa (Orleans), Ont
Used to have a trailer at McCulloughs Landing on Mississippi Lake. Each spring a group from Pennsylvania used to come down for a week or so and FILL 3 and 4 coollers with crappie.
I don't get on any soap boxes or get preachy about my opinions on fishing, but I just don't feel that's right, regardless if it is legal or not. IN the future they will be the same fisherment ruminating around a campfire telling stories about ...remember when we could catch 1 pound slabs all day? Boy, it's a shame those days are over. I wonder what happened?
There. I'm done.
I don't get on any soap boxes or get preachy about my opinions on fishing, but I just don't feel that's right, regardless if it is legal or not. IN the future they will be the same fisherment ruminating around a campfire telling stories about ...remember when we could catch 1 pound slabs all day? Boy, it's a shame those days are over. I wonder what happened?
There. I'm done.
Limits
Hi
Great thread though it is getting long.
I remember 20 years ago when there was a Sunfish Derby on Mississippi Lake put on by Mississippi Camping and sanctioned by the MNR to help clean up the lake (over-populated) of the stunted sunfish.
It was a 2 day derby (catch and keep) and as I recall the winner caught 600 fish in the two days and a ton of fish were caught and taken by someone for "dog food"
The next year the winner caught about 400 fish and the next and last year of the derby the winner only caught about 240 fish.
It showed that a concentrated effort could really affect the number of fish. But what happened in the next years was that the sunfish that were left were much bigger and there were more walleyes and bigger pike around too. So I think that we did a good thing by cleaning up the sunfish.
This was one particular lake that did seem to have a problem. The MNR has to research the lakes and see what level of catch & keep they can handle.
I would think that most of us on this board would think that cleaning 50 fish after fishing all day is not something to look forward too, but there are a few people who think that the taste of sunfish is worth it.
Should there be a limit on sunfish?
Yes, but maybe it could be 100 sunfish, but only on lakes that can handle that type of pressure.
It really comes down to the MNR doing their homework before bringing in a new regulation and then they would be able to show us why. The flip flop on the limits and the flip flop on the bait size show that they are not doing research and they do not know what the users want.
Super
Great thread though it is getting long.
I remember 20 years ago when there was a Sunfish Derby on Mississippi Lake put on by Mississippi Camping and sanctioned by the MNR to help clean up the lake (over-populated) of the stunted sunfish.
It was a 2 day derby (catch and keep) and as I recall the winner caught 600 fish in the two days and a ton of fish were caught and taken by someone for "dog food"
The next year the winner caught about 400 fish and the next and last year of the derby the winner only caught about 240 fish.
It showed that a concentrated effort could really affect the number of fish. But what happened in the next years was that the sunfish that were left were much bigger and there were more walleyes and bigger pike around too. So I think that we did a good thing by cleaning up the sunfish.
This was one particular lake that did seem to have a problem. The MNR has to research the lakes and see what level of catch & keep they can handle.
I would think that most of us on this board would think that cleaning 50 fish after fishing all day is not something to look forward too, but there are a few people who think that the taste of sunfish is worth it.
Should there be a limit on sunfish?
Yes, but maybe it could be 100 sunfish, but only on lakes that can handle that type of pressure.
It really comes down to the MNR doing their homework before bringing in a new regulation and then they would be able to show us why. The flip flop on the limits and the flip flop on the bait size show that they are not doing research and they do not know what the users want.
Super
Odd you should mention that,
My folks live on that lake. There has always been an abundance of rock bass and sunfish around their dock.
2 years ago it was nothing for the kids to drop a worm and catch a fish.
There weren't as many this last year.
Now I am not trying to sound any alarms here, but I just wanted to state our observation....
Needless to say the kids were a little upset not to catch as many fish.
J
My folks live on that lake. There has always been an abundance of rock bass and sunfish around their dock.
2 years ago it was nothing for the kids to drop a worm and catch a fish.
There weren't as many this last year.
Now I am not trying to sound any alarms here, but I just wanted to state our observation....
Needless to say the kids were a little upset not to catch as many fish.
J