Online!
Offline
I don’t live in the area and I only fish in Algonquin. I noticed the proposed decreased catch limits for Brook Trout. For me as I largely canoe solo, if I’m lucky I might keep one brook trout for supper so the proposed changes don’t affect me any, Knowing the government if anything the proposed changes are probably too late…in my humble opinion.
Offline
most of it seems reasonable, but this concerns me- "
Offline
I'm not thrilled with the proposal to stop the walleye stocking. I don't see an obvious reason for that.
The proposal to stop stocking Rainbow and Brown trout is long overdue. Those are non-native species and should not be getting stocked in Ontario.
I see the logic in the proposal to stop stocking Splake in lakes that are having natural Lake and Brook trout populations as the Splake would compete for habitat and food. While stocking can help support angling pressure, it would conflict with setting proper limits to support the natural populations.
Offline
RobW wrote:
I'm not thrilled with the proposal to stop the walleye stocking. I don't see an obvious reason for that.
The proposal to stop stocking Rainbow and Brown trout is long overdue. Those are non-native species and should not be getting stocked in Ontario.
I see the logic in the proposal to stop stocking Splake in lakes that are having natural Lake and Brook trout populations as the Splake would compete for habitat and food. While stocking can help support angling pressure, it would conflict with setting proper limits to support the natural populations.
I get what you mean but my concern is that by not stocking some common game species, your laker and brookie populations will receive far more fishing pressure. The ideal would be to stock indigenous species to improve the gene pool and alleviate that angler pressure, but for some reason the Ministry never seems to do the logical thing....
Offline
captainchaos2000 wrote:
I don’t live in the area and I only fish in Algonquin. I noticed the proposed decreased catch limits for Brook Trout. For me as I largely canoe solo, if I’m lucky I might keep one brook trout for supper so the proposed changes don’t affect me any, Knowing the government if anything the proposed changes are probably too late…in my humble opinion.
One or two fish is enough to get a taste of trout. 5 fish per day seemed excessive. All you can eat buffet or taking home that many, I think the fishery is past sustaining that practice.
The minimum size limit will also have an impact on lake trout catches. Again probably a good thing, let the fish breed several times before they are legal keep size.
Last edited by SeekingSolitude (11/10/2022 11:37 pm)
Offline
I'm all for the reduction in keep rates. But I don't know about the minimum size restrictions for Lake Trout.
I may catch the occassional Laker and let it go on a day when I'm travelling. But, I'm not fishing hard and I'm not targeting Lake Trout. For the most part if I catch a Laker I'm keeping it. Catch and release for Lake Trout has a pretty high mortality rate. Having a size minimum means putting back fish that have a good chance of dying. And continuing to fish until I catch one big enough to keep.
Decrease the limits for sure. I'm just not sure how effective these size restrictions will be.
Offline
Good point about un-intended outcomes with the survival rate of catch & release due to size limit, more fish caught resulting in higher mortality. I too have wondered about being less selective & just keeping the fish I caught, instead of continuing to fish for the one I want (species or size), especially in a fishery that has a lot of fishing pressure.
I really have no idea, just thinking out loud, but I have also wondered if doing something like Manitoba or Quetico, going barbless really has the desired effect? Is it really effective or is it virtue signaling that has un-intended consequences? Namely, the un-intended effect is a fisherman feels more comfortable continuing to fish, catching & releasing more fish & despite lower mortality rate the higher volume of fish caught & released results in total higher number of mortality? As I prefaced, I really don't know, but the thought has crossed my mind...
Offline
My current understanding on a couple of points:
1) Barbless helps improve survival rates for catch and release by reducing the time spent handling fish and reducing the stress as a result.
2) I think survival rates for Lakers are closely tied to the season and water temps which in turn affect the depth at which the fish are caught. Early spring trolling a flatline with no extra weight, the fish are getting hooked around 12' deep so they aren't suffering huge pressure differences and if released are going back into water that is still a safe temperature at or just below the surface. In contrast if I'm using lead core in the summer and hooking fish around 24-40' deep then the pressure change coming to the surface is significant and so is the temperature shock. At that time of year I'll plan on keeping whatever I catch, respecting the size limits of course. I'll also most likely be at the cottage which is a stocked Splake lake without a size limit.
Offline
lakers brought up from deep water need to be burped before being returned to the water,, by running your finger along the belly to help stabilize the bladder,,
Offline
swedish pimple wrote:
lakers brought up from deep water need to be burped before being returned to the water,, by running your finger along the belly to help stabilize the bladder,,
Thx Swede didn't know that. Good tip.
Last edited by ShawnD (11/15/2022 2:13 pm)