Offline
Hi all,
What do you all think about a proposed change in regs? I found it frustrating on my May 24 trip finding smallmouth bass in the same pools as trout and having to throw nice 2-3lb bass back in the river instead of in the pan. What do you all think? It makes zero sense to me to protect these invasive beasts other than in landlocked areas where they don't threaten trout populations.
Offline
Hi Lenny,
Catching any fish protecting a nest is relatively easy and isn't terribly sporting, regardless of whether that fish occurs naturally in the location or was introduced. As a result, many fish management agencies have closed fishing during spawning seasons and require immediate release of accidental catches. I support those laws.
The concept of harvesting a few of them by fishermen to exterminate them from a waterway is ineffective. As a species they will out-compete most salmonids over the long term. The harvest would have to be of an industrial scale with nets and other equipment that would likely cause more damage to the native species and environment you are frustrated about. Unless we can identify some targeted parasite (also likely non-native) we will have to continue living with this issue as we have for the last couple hundred years.
Offline
The MNR already establishes different seasons for the same species in different management zones and they have lake specific exceptions within management zones. Given that bass are a non-native species in Algonquin then having an extended season for bass in Algonquin would be consistent with promoting the park as a refuge for native species. Aligning the opening of bass season with the opening of trout season would still protect the native trout populations would maintain the current rules for trout while potentially increasing angling pressure on the non-native bass species.
I think that change could be justified within the park.
Outside of the park, bass are an important sport fish species. While non-native they are "naturalized" and thrive in lakes that do not support wild populations of native trout. Our cottage lake is an example. It is stocked with Splake as a put-and-take fishery but has no naturally reproducing trout population. No pike or walleye or other native species of significant size. Managing the bass season to protect the species during nesting season is important to maintaining the fishery and recreational values of the area.
Offline
i have talked to m.n.r. staff about this very topic over the years,, my yearly rant on here ( i gave up) the fishing regs need to be reviewed ,, the last review was in the early 90`s (correct me if i am wrong) algonquin park bass fishing regs should be like Quetico provincial park,,, bass season should be open all year around and with no limits,, KILL A BASS SAVE A TROUT!! also the trout creel limits should be lower,, anglers need to limit there catch, not catch there limit !!!
now for the tricky part ,, algonquin needs to promote or go barbless fishing ( just like Quetico ) to help protect trout and make catch and release easier,,, especially when you look at the price of rapellas and some spoons,, $18.00 snagged on a log. good luck removing that bait with the barbs still intact!!!
what goes around comes around,, i have tried to engage people in this convervsation over the years only to be ignored or that i have a bad attitude,,
remember algonquin is not a true wilderness park ( as the m.n.r. likes you to believe, with 3000 km of logging roads) algonquin is a 4 to 6 hour drive. for 4 to 6 million people at least. the pressure is on the natural fishing resources in back counrty lakes from native year around fishing with no creel limits and snowmoble ,quad runners for easier access,,,
Last edited by swedish pimple (6/29/2022 9:48 am)
Offline
Agreed, and @PApaddler, I don't think many would be bass fishing in Algonquin to be sporting but more keeping bass caught as by-catch while trout or walleye fishing. It makes no sense to protect them in my opinion. I would be fine seeing exemptions in areas like the lower Petawawa where there are no trout to protect.
Swedish Pimple- totally agreed, I would love to see limits lowered to 2 brook trout sport, 1 conservation. The 5 brook trout sport limit is excessive. Barbless fishing would certainly help as well as single hook barbless artificial bait. Fishing worm and bobber style or treble hooked spinners that many do in Algonquin is not great for catch and release. With more traffic in the park they need to look at updating the regs.
Eat a bass save a trout!
Thread StarterOffline
@Lenny - I have personally planned summer trips to bass lakes in Algonquin just like I plan spring trips to trout lakes. I am almost exclusively catch and release so that would qualify as sporting, I expect. I imagine there are others like me or with minor differences; people fish for fun and enjoyment without harvesting the fish so I'm not sure why you would think that not many people do that?
@RobW - where does the park promote being a refuge for native trout species? All of the refuges that I've visited generally prohibit the harvest of the species intended to be protected while Algonquin actively promotes itself as a healthy native trout fishery. It may be referred to as 'the last refuge of old growth' or 'a refuge for diminishing brook trout' but both of those are figures of speech (and biased likely to drum up support for a preservation agenda) and not an actual refuge where harvest is prohibited. Your logic on alignment between bass and trout seasons is sound (if you want to maximize the harvest of bass) but I doubt that seasonal sport fishing pressure alone would extirpate the species from Algonquin watersheds.
Offline
@PaPaddler- fair point, appreciate your perspective. Cheers!
Thread StarterOffline
PaPaddler,
I believe they are referring to the difference in fishing licenses... Sport (higher catch and possession limits) vs Conservation (lower limits).
I personally have only fished a handful of times but find the discussion quite interesting. I bought the conservation knowing my odds of catching anything were low and keeping it nonexistent lol.
Offline
@Stapes - fair point;
Merely offering a conservation license option is a good thing if it merely stimulates someone to harvest less but even better if it stimulates the thought of 'why conserve?'.
Offline
@PAPaddler - take a look at both the Algonquin trout season dates vs the rest of Zone 15 and the additional lake specific regulations for headwater lakes such as Welcome/Harry/Rence.
Being a refuge doesn't arbitrarily mean that there is no open season. It may have more restrictive seasons or it may have more restrictive physical access. The trout season in Algonquin is 4 months shorter than the rest of Zone 15. Given the relatively large area of Algonquin that is only accessible by non-motorized transport, Algonquin is an effective refuge. Protecting native populations i headwater lakes also supports downstream populations by providing a source for population renewal.
I have no expectation of non-native bass populations being eradicated. At the same time I don't see any justification for bass to have a more restricted season than trout do.
Offline
who protects the native fish from the natives,, NOBODY i drove by the rock lake road last winter and there were four half ton trucks and snowmobile trailers parked along the entrance,, i wonder what these truck owners are doing?? ICE FISHING ACESS ALONG THE ROAD WAY INTO WELCOME, RENCE AND HARRY WITH WINTER TENT CAMPS SET UP.
live bait issues,, if questioned by the m.n.r threats have been made to bring pike minnows into these lakes next time,, remember 300kms of logging roads to travel on,, wake up people,, there will be nothing left for your grand kids!!!
Last edited by swedish pimple (6/30/2022 5:58 pm)
Offline
@RobW - makes good sense. Thanks for the explanation!
Offline
Lenny wrote:
Agreed, and @PApaddler, I don't think many would be bass fishing in Algonquin to be sporting but more keeping bass caught as by-catch while trout or walleye fishing. It makes no sense to protect them in my opinion. I would be fine seeing exemptions in areas like the lower Petawawa where there are no trout to protect.
Swedish Pimple- totally agreed, I would love to see limits lowered to 2 brook trout sport, 1 conservation. The 5 brook trout sport limit is excessive. Barbless fishing would certainly help as well as single hook barbless artificial bait. Fishing worm and bobber style or treble hooked spinners that many do in Algonquin is not great for catch and release. With more traffic in the park they need to look at updating the regs.
Eat a bass save a trout!
I'm from Manitoba originally which has had the requirement for barbless hook since 1990 its the law. When I moved to Ontario I had originally thought it was the same, I was surprised that we are not. But doesn't matter all my tackle is barbless, I agree barbless hook fishing is better for a healthier release.
1 of 1