First of all, thank you very much for the fantastic insight into your thoughts, your suggestions, your experiences, positions, recognition of the limits of our Ministry, and everything else that was mentioned in this thread. Most of all I applaude you all for keeping the discussion for the most part respectful, on topic, and informative.
Since there were 2 threads on this, I combined them into this one thread so as to have the opinion poll included in the discussion information. I just spent the last hour reading each and every post that has been made here and would like to highlight a few notables and provide some information and questions of my own...
1. For the average day to day fisherman, imposing a catch limit seems to be a favourable preference. Out of a total of 92 votes, 55% are for it, 18% have no opinion, and 26% are against it. I'm not about to analyze this further, but only to ask the questions....I wonder what the premise of people's original votes were, and it presented with "other" less obvious information, would they change it. Something to consider.....
2. It's not a question of removing "all" the sunfish or even "many or most of them", it's a question of what is the appropriate "balance" which will allow other species to thrive, and how do we enforce this? A difficult question for sure....
3. In the perfect world I suppose, regulations would be customized on a per body of water basis, since obtaining this "balance" would be different for each body of water. The challenge here is "how" do you determine this? Scientific knowledge for each body of water may not be readily available and obtaining this data difficult. Believe it or not, there are over 28,000 Lakes and Rivers of varying sizes in zone 18 covering over 138,000 hectars....yes that's right! A per body of water regulation would be virtually impossible and definately complicate the understanding of the regulations. In 2008 the MNR reduced the number of zones in order to try and simplify it's management, based on a whole study of ecological, environmental, and other factors. Fewer zones may simplify things by having fewer groups, however provides a much more diverse area that needs to be considered. Can we identify Large Lakes lakes and apply a per body of water regulation on these? Possible I suppose, but out of the over 28,000 bodies of water there are still over 1,000 of those which are greater than 100 hectars. What size constitutes are Large Body of Water?
4. Removing sunfish from bodies of water may indeed help other species grow and thrive, but how many are required to be removed in order to accomplish this "balance"? Again it's different for each body of water.
5. We (Canadians) rely on our American friends to inject funds into our tourism industry, just like American's rely on Canada to do the same. If it were up to me, I think the US should put a limit on the number of shoes and handbags that Canadians are allowed to take from US outlets, and if not made a global regulation, can you just make that reg apply to my wife?
But seriously though, there is definately an economic factor that must be considered as well....again a "balance". The economy affects us all. For Lodges which happen to be on a body of water where a limit is imposed vs. one where no limit is imposed, I think we've lost that balance from an economic viewpoint, not just for Ontario, but also for these Lodge owners who earn their living from having tourists visit their establishments. At the same time though, how do we weigh the livelihood of a lodge owner (which doesn't really impact the average fisherman) against the sustaining of our environment and health of our bodies of water? I see a difficult decision needed to be made here unless the Ministry finds a "compromise" which results in a win-win situation for all stakeholders involved.
6. Finally there was some controversy over Freezer Trucks. While the thought of it seems unrealistic, it actually does happen. I've not been made privy as to exactly "how much" it happens, but it does to some extent. I won't go into any further details on this, as it can be viewed as a very sensitive subject, but rather throw out the idea of considernig what kind of regulation can be put in place in order to avoid this from happening.
If nothing else has come out of this discussion, I do hope it has at least illustrated that there are quite a number of things which our Ministry needs to take into consideration when developing these regulations. It's not an easy task. While on the surface it may seem like a no brainer, there are a lot of factors which need to be thought about.
As noted in one of the posts, the Ministry has established an Advisory Council for Zone 18, which has been formed to provide recommendations on future regulations, based on the participation of representatives from several stakeholder groups. I am proud to let you know that I hold a seat on this council, representing you all, the average anglers, and plan to use this site as a communications mechanism to help share your comments and ideas with the Council and the Ministry on different topics as they are explored. While I am only 1 of several different stakeholders, I obviously cannot promise that these recommendations will be liked and accepted by everyone, but what I can promise you is that I will keep you abreast of information that I am allowed to share, and pass along your comments and thoughts on different topics of discussion so that they can be taken into consideration for any recommendations that may come out of it.
Once again, I thank you very much for your participation in this survey and the views expressed.
Cheers,
With the NOTABLE exception of the cancellation of the spring bear hunt!!! 
