Offline
Rob, if you are still reading this... I haven't PMed anyone over your post nor do I ask for it to be removed or edited, but having read it with an open mind I really don't know where you're coming from saying I was practicing "Immoral and unethical harvesting" and the trout was "wrongfully removed from the fishery" and "obviously should have been released". If you feel more comfortable never keeping a trout, that's fine as a personal decision, but it's not a community consensus that you can insist others follow.
It seems it's more the size of the trout that bothers you. And I'm sorry to be repetitive, because I feel like I've said this 3 or 4 times now, but this lake trout is of a size NOT protected by slot restrictions on heavily pressured lake trout lakes where they apply. I know slot sizes are not a perfect science and I've heard well-reasoned arguments against the whole concept, but it's still the closest thing we have to official guidance as to the most sustainable size classes of lake trout to keep/release. Some people's notion of selective harvest is to only ever keep small trout. Less biomass taken from the trout community, and less important a breeder, I imagine.
Yet you implicitly suggest that my keeping a small laker has some impact on the fishery that keeping a larger one would not. You say you "would not have a problem with someone enjoying a realistic Trout dinner" but somehow taking a trout of this size, even just one, is something that if everyone did would deplete the fishery. Sorry, I know neither of us are fisheries biologists, but unless anyone has a logical explanation it just doesn't add up to me.
What I think this is really about is your key word "realistic trout dinner" -- you don't think it's realistic that we made a meal out of that little guy, so you think it was a waste. Well, I can assure you we did make a meal out of it, or rather the protein component of a meal, and it was a highlight of the trip and as good a use as any for the occasional trout harvest (which by the way I never justified by saying I'm just one person, I was pointing out how far below our limits we took).
Just because it's not the trout you would have kept, if you were catching lots of trout and were just going to keep one, doesn't mean there's a conservation case against keeping it vs a bigger one. If you're going to say I "wrongfully" kept it and should have got my trout from a restaurant, please make some sort of reasoned argument to that effect, because right now all I'm hearing is "it's not what I do so it's immoral".
Nevertheless I'm sorry to hear you're leaving the forum (and boycotting its sponsors...??) over this fish and I hope you'll reconsider. For what it's worth we all know Swede isn't here to troll.
Offline
"I know neither of us are fisheries biologists, but unless anyone has a logical explanation..."
A former APP fisheries biologist, Frank Hicks, has written a chapter in Algonquin Ecowatch's recent book on the human impact on APP and some of the text deals with overfishing (there are other issues like introductions of exotic species besides). IIRC, lakes with easy access, close to the highway and access points, like Opeongo and Smoke, are showing signs of overexploitation. Use of motorboats, downriggers and high-tech gear like depth sounders and GPS also could be contributing factors. Anyway, worth a look.
Sure, in the past APP used to yield larger-sized trout and fishing down the largest individuals has reduced the average size caught. I have photos and text from historical sources somewhere that provides some evidence that this is true. But APP exists in southern Ontario where millions of people have relatively easy access and maybe we should be looking at bigger-picture remedies to address the degradation. The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario has made recommendations recently on what needs to be done.
Offline
slots do not work!!!! 1 ) little fish under the slot are kept. 2) spawners above the slot are kept. that leaves ya with what? a lake of slot fish that have be returned to the lake. if using a barbed hook and handling a bleeding fishing what do ya do if it is in the slot. return it to the lake to die? wasteful again, or keep it and risk a charge.
i have had much dialogue or the last few years, with the recently retired fishery biologist from algonquin . ya think he would know? 34 years experience,, he has tried to change the slots, however the non biologists people at the top of the m.n.r. house are deaf to his concerns. he is a science guy all the way. shown the facts. the facts are slot regs. just do not work. he has mentioned to me that barbless fishing and smaller creel limits for trout are the way to go. who needs to limit out in the interior. also increasing limits on bass and pike with longer seasons for each. worm ban too. by the way all of quetico park is barbless, imagine that eh, and the natives run the outfitters, so they have skin in the game. their bottom line suffers if the fishing stocks are over harvested. not good for business. at opie americans run the outfitters at the lake shore palace and the natives run their business from a pick up truck!!
bottom line is. every thing is open to interpretation. and in my view catching and keeping a trout under the slot is just plain unethical. call this number 1- 613-637-2780 ext 270 ask to speak to glen the fishery biologist algonquin park,
last time i checked the st. lawernce market in toronto sold fish.
check, your move? or have the post blown away,, the easy way out, eh?
Last edited by swedish pimple (3/13/2016 8:35 pm)
Offline
@Swede - Yes, I said above I've heard well-reasoned arguments against the slot system -- including some of the same, and probably from the same retired fisheries biologist, as you describe -- my point was not that they work well on a practical level, but that on a theoretical level, they suggest that the smallest size classes are not the most critical for conservation. We're not so far apart on your other points, I've never limited out in the interior and would have no problem with lower creel limits, and I agree about longer bass and pike seasons at least in areas where they're not native. And I've never had a post "blown away" so I can't speak to that.
So, again, the sticking point here is small-sized lakers. You've reiterated your view that keeping a small-sized trout is unethical, and I still have yet to see an explanation of why it hurts the fishery more than keeping a larger one, though frozentripper did make the case as to why, on the contrary, always keeping big ones has impacted the fishery. Don't keep small ones if you're not personally comfortable with it, but unless there's a real reason what I did was unsustainable, please don't treat me like I'm exploiting some loophole in the regs to take more than my share.
Offline
"bottom line is. every thing is open to interpretation. and in my view catching and keeping a trout under the slot is just plain unethical."
@SP you were doing fine until you thought your opinion became a fact.
"last time i checked the st. lawernce market in toronto sold fish.
check, your move? or have the post blown away,, the easy way out, eh?"
@SP Now your trolling again
If I was to believe Rob then as an old guy and long time user of this site you're allowed to make these types of statements
, but I don't think I will as it doesn't bring any thing to the conversation.
Wouldn't it be easier if you showed everyone which rule or regulation Dan PM broke in keeping that trout, can you do that for us? Please?
Last edited by Bob (3/14/2016 5:52 am)
Offline
I love reading how smaller creel limits are the way to go, but you get slammed for keeping one fish! What should be the daily limit, 1/2 a fish? And it should be one of the prime breeders above the slot size?!
Offline
Thanks Bob but the fact is, SP is a long-time member of the forum, and often does share helpful content, including fishing advice on the most recent thread on the fishing sub-forum. But for some reason this little laker set him off... actually it's a bit surprising, Swede, since I remember you using the T-word against someone who came onto the forum to criticize another member for posting a report with a pic of a couple of kept brookies. I was with you on that, the guy was being preachy and condescending. Only difference was the size of the fish.
Offline
Here's some heavy-duty harvesting, lake trout from Hogan lake, 1936... historical accounts suggest this kind of thing went on during the early days of APP.
Offline
I thought the number of species allowed (as well as the minimum length) was defined in the regulations? If the fish was caught within the regulations, I'm struggling with the issue. I do find it a lot smaller than what I would of thought to be legal. Smaller than what I would keep but that is personal and I wouldn't chastise someone else if they are in legal limits.
