Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 06/22/2017 in Posts

  1. 7 likes
    Hey everybody fishing from shore at Balduc Bay. Please do us all a favour and clean up your garbage whe you leave. It's a great place to be, fishing is pretty good, but what a mess! Cans, plastic, paper, fishing line, ect. Don't make your garbage everyone else's problem.
  2. 3 likes
    Ok fair enough if trappers are getting smaller bait. But you can't market a S-10 as a full sized pick up just because you don't have any full sized pick ups left. Just say you have small a and mediums and sort them.
  3. 3 likes
    It was early, a bright sunny morning today and nature was active as I sipped my coffee. Squirrels scolding me as I placed new seeds in the feeder. Blue Jays watching from the apple tree and munks waiting patiently for me to leave the peanut pile. Yes, nature was active I thought and I wondered how and if the Walleye would cooperate. Loading up the boat only took a short moment and two eager Walleye hunters were on the way to the Kam. The launch was quiet at 10am and we slipped the Crestliner into the rivers mighty grasp. I loaded the rods with #7 Flicker Shads and gave the wife a tried and proven firetiger and I loaded the black/silver. It wasn't long and when I heard "fish on". And what a nice beast it was. I followed shortly with a nice beast of my own. Two overs in less than half an hour. We continued our leisurely journey up towards the Old Fort, catching and releasing another angry beast and many smaller eyes along the way at almost every bend in the river. We never even made it to the Riverdale Road launch. It was a spectacular day of fishing as we pounded on the Walleye and the best we have had on the Kam this year. It was incredible. My wife has never experienced that kind of action so it was great to see the smile of a happy Walleye hunter. At 1pm we had our limit and gave the rest of the Walleye in the system some time to relax as we motored back to the launch. Dinner was fantastic.
  4. 3 likes
    Oh, I agree entirely...one of the biggest flaws with any size limit regulation is that it acts as a size bottleneck in a heavily-fished population. It's far from foolproof. But regarding the planning bit...ever since 2008 when they re-designed the management zones, MNRF has moved away from putting one-off exceptions on lakes based solely on angler observations. Everything is supposed to be measurable and based on sound science, and vetted through the consultation process associated with fisheries management planning.The point I was trying to make was not to disagree with you or Roger, nor to justify the current reg, but rather that these kinds of concerns should be brought to MNRFs attention the next time the planning process begins.
  5. 3 likes
    Fished all day on the eastern half of Lac yesterday and managed to get our limit of 14-15" walleye (and one perch). Seemed a bit slow in the calm waters and bright, hot sunshine and walleye were scattered everywhere from 4 to 24 feet deep. Latched onto quite a few pike as well. A beautiful day to be on the lake though!
  6. 3 likes
    EDIT: Repair crews were finally on scene on July 4th - can not confirm if road repairs are complete at this time (July 6th, 2017) WARNING: AS OF THIS MORNING, THURSDAY JUNE 29th - BSR is WASHED AT MM 58 (just south of the Muskrat Road turn off) - impassable! My dad was going out there this morning and returned to let me know... Make alternate arrangements for the long weekend to get where you're going
  7. 3 likes
  8. 3 likes
  9. 2 likes
    It's that time of the year where the warm water makes it really tough for the bait trappers to get much of anything in their sets. Small to medium minnows are about the only thing that will go into the traps. Leeches are affected by the water temps to. If the trappers aren't catching the larger sized bait fish or leeches, how are the bait shops going to sell them? As soon as the water temperatures cool, the trappers will start catching larger bait fish again. Just in time for fall fishing. On the flip side, young of the year bait fish are in abundance, all sizes of fish will be feeding on them. Stay cool! AB
  10. 2 likes
    luc

    SSS

    I'm still shocked from winning the SSS tournament. It means a lot to me since most of the best fishermen from NWO were there! Thanks again to all the volunteers and sponsors 🎣😎
  11. 2 likes
    TROPHY is a relative term.....my grand daughter caught her first fish, a 13 inch walleye...it is now a trophy.
  12. 2 likes
    I think you can expect to see a similar pattern emerge (where fish of the minimum size limit are harder to find)-regardless of where the MNR sets the minimum size limit-- especially in lakes that get heavy fishing pressure. It is pretty common for walleye to have boom and bust cycles where it appears that one or more year-classes are scarce in a particular lake. This phenomenon is generally thought to be caused by environmental conditions affecting the success rate of the spawn and subsequent survival of the fry. It seems to occur regardless of whether there are highly restrictive limits on minimum or maximum size allowed for harvest. That said, I have definitely noticed that catching 17-18" fish can be a bit more challenging in the northwestern Ontario lakes that I fish, but I've never noticed any problem with finding fish in the 15-16" range. Some of the lakes that I fish also have a "slot" limit that bans harvest of any fish in the 18-24" range and for those lakes I have noticed that we catch more fish that are 18-20"-- which I think is good as these are fish that should be left to ensure future breeding. I think an important consideration is what you are hoping to "get" when you go walleye fishing. Do you want to catch a trophy (whatever that means to you) and be able to take it home to mount on the wall? Do you want to catch a few fish to fry up for dinner? Do you want to have lots of catch-and-release action? Do you want to catch a large stringer of fish and get a picture that shows what a great angler you are? In my opinion, the Ontario walleye regs are a good blend in that they allow you to possess 2 (conservation license) or 4 (full license) and that should generally be enough to feed the angler and a couple of friends as well as bring home a trophy if that is what you are looking to do (although I would highly recommend releasing that trophy and getting a replica made if you really want to hang something on your wall) while at the same time the regs do a good job of protecting the breeding population from over-harvest by anglers.
  13. 2 likes
    Chrisso, I hope your new bride didn't tell you about all the fishing to be done in Thunder Bay.......she lied. There are no fish here. Any pictures she or her family may have shown you of fish and fishing related activities were likely taken in Manitoba - next province to the west. Seriously though, congratulations, folks around here will likely PM you a few spots to try. AB
  14. 2 likes
    Well il chime in cause I've been going steady about 2 times a week since may long, fishing in dog has been hit and miss one day it's great and the next it's off, athelstein has been really good, road in sucks 👎 Pretty slow going unless u want to rip something off the trailer, just got back from 5 days in nakina and well u couldn't keep them if u wanted up their 👍, been up to shabandwon and did okay in middle, fished a few other secret lakes did good even when the May fly hatch was on, so that's my walleye info for month happy fishing 🎣 !
  15. 2 likes
    Another reason the fishing and hunting community and the general public as well should be aware that conservation and environmental groups or organizations should not be trusted completely without data driven facts is this sham on CO2, Acid Rain and Global Warming. Pure scientific and political data and facts, right. Not so fast. It's a good read and will open many eye's on the subject. Remember the big “acid rain” scare during the 1970s and 1980s attributing damage to lakes and forests to emissions from Midwestern utilities? If so, did you ever hear the results of a more than half-billion-dollar, 10-year-long national Acid Precipitation Assessment Program study that was initiated in 1980 to research the matter? Probably not. As it turned out, those widespread fears proved to be largely unfounded, since only one species of tree at a high elevation suffered any notable effect, and acidity in lakes was traced to natural causes. The investigating scientists reported that they had Robert Bruck, a North Carolina State University plant pathologist who worked on the project, observed: “if you're environmentally oriented, you going to find things to be concerned about; if you're one who finds no reason to get excited, you'll find much to support that too.” Although the Reagan-Bush administration refused to sponsor any acid rain legislation before the results were in, the regulatory groundwork had already been established through the EPA to avoid letting a perfectly good crisis go to waste. Senator John Heinz (R–PA) and Timothy Wirth (D-CO) had previously cosponsored a “Project 88” to provide a pathway for converting environmental issues into business opportunities. That media-fueled alarm about acid rain provided a great basis for new “allowance trading” legislation to create markets for buying and selling excess sulfur dioxide (SO2) credits. Project 88 became the Clean Air Act of 1990. “ Carbon-Capping Cronies: Enron, Al Gore and Friends One of the big traders in the SO2 allowance market was Enron. Back at that time in the 1990s the company was diversifying its energy business, and already owned the largest natural gas pipeline that existed outside of Russia, a colossal interstate network. However natural was having difficulties competing with coal. The hype about global warming which had been ginned up by then-Senator Al Gore’s famous 1988 congressional hearings on the matter provided what Enron recognized as a dream opportunity. After all, since a cap-and-trade market had been established for SO2, why not do the same for CO2 which was already being blamed for a climate crisis? Natural gas was a lower CO2-emitter than coal. Besides, they knew exactly where to go in Washington to get some help. Enron’s CEO Ken Lay had met with President Clinton and Vice President Gore in the White House on August 4, 1997 to prepare a strategy for the upcoming Kyoto conference in December. Kyoto was the first step toward creating a carbon market that Enron desperately wanted Congress to support. But there was one very pesky problem. Unlike SO2 which really does produce unhealthy smog, CO2 wasn’t a pollutant…at least not yet…and therefore EPA had no authority to regulate it. So after Al Gore’s Senate pal Timothy Wirth was appointed to become undersecretary of state for global affairs in the Clinton-Gore administration, Enron’s boss Lay began working closely with him to lobby Congress to grant EPA necessary CO2 regulatory authority plus also gain public support for the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol initiative. And lobby they did. Between 1994 and 1996 the Enron Foundation contributed nearly $1 million to the Nature Conservancy, and together with the Pew Center and the Heinz Foundation they engaged in an energetic and successful global warming fear campaign which included attacks on scientific dissenters. Incidentally, the Heinz Foundation, headed by Teresa Heinz Kerry, generously provided a $250,000 award to Al Gore's star congressional hearing witness, NASA’s James Hansen, who subsequently went on public record supporting her new husband John Kerry’s failed presidential bid. An internal Enron memorandum stated that Kyoto would “do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside the restructuring [of] the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States." The rest, as they say, is history. Al Gore and his partner David Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM) took big stakes in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) which was poised to make windfall profits selling CO2 offsets if and when cap-and-trade was passed in Congress. Speaking before a 2007 Joint House Hearing of the Energy Science Committee, Gore told members: “As soon as carbon has a price, you’re going to see a wave [of investment] in it…There will be unchained investment.” Thanks to a 2010 Republican mid-term House cleaning that didn’t occur. Windy Hurricane Sensationalism Poses Extreme Science Threat There’s nothing like terrible and destructive weather events to stir up climate scaremongering. A notable example occurred just prior to the release of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Summary for Policymaker’s Report following the devastating 2004 summer storm season which witnessed five landfall hurricanes in Florida which captured media attention throughout the world. Opportunities to link this unusual pattern to man-made global warming were not lost on some IPCC officials, particularly Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in New Zealand. In October of that year he participated in a press conference that announced: “Experts found global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense activity.” But there was a serious challenge. The IPCC studies released in 1995 and 2001 had found no evidence of a global warming–hurricane link, and there was no new analysis to suggest otherwise. Dr. Christopher Landsea, an expert on the subject at the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, was astounded and perplexed when he was informed that the press conference was to take place. As a contributing author on both of the IPCC's previous reports and an invited author for the upcoming 2007 report, Landsea believed there must be some huge mistake. He had not done any work to substantiate the claim. Nobody had. There were no studies that revealed an upward trend of hurricane frequency or intensity...not in the Atlantic basin or in any other basin. Landsea wrote to top IPCC officials imploring, “What scientific, refereed publications substantiate these pronouncements? What studies being alluded to have shown a connection between observed warming trends on Earth and long–term trends of tropical cyclone activity?” Having received no replies, he then requested IPCC leadership assurance that the 2007 report would present true science, saying: “[ Dr. Trenberth] seems to have come to a conclusion that global warming has altered hurricane activity, and has already stated so. This does not reflect consensus within the hurricane research community… Thus, I would like assurance that what will be included in the IPCC report will reflect the best available information consensus within the scientific community most expert on this specific topic.” After the assurance didn’t come, Landsea resigned from the 2007 IPCC report activities and issued an open letter presenting his reasons. And while the IPCC press conference proclaiming that global warming causes hurricanes received tumultuous responses in the international press, Mother Nature hasn’t paid much attention. In reality, there has been no increase in the strength or frequency of landfall hurricanes in the world’s five main hurricane basins during the past 50-70 years; there has been no increase in the strength or frequency in tropical Atlantic hurricane development during the past 370 years; and the U.S. is currently enjoying the longest period ever recorded without intense Category 3-5 hurricane landfall. By the way, while there also hasn’t been any increase in mean global temperatures during lifetimes of most of today’s high school students, Kevin Trenberth’s theories still get lots of attention. Searching for answers as to where the “missing heat” that greenhouse gas emissions should have trapped in the Earth’s climate system went, he speculates that the oceans ate them. Unfortunately, the science to support this most recent assertion is once again missing as well. The Big Himalayan Melting Glacier Snow Job Although the IPCC is broadly represented to the public as the top authority on climate matters, the organization doesn’t actually carry out any original climate research at all. Instead, it simply issues assessments based upon supposedly independent surveys of published peer-reviewed research. However, some of the most influential conclusions summarized in its reports have neither been based upon truly independent research, nor properly vetted through accepted peer- review processes. IPCC’“We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take action.” Well, they were successful and did get some action. This dire prediction prompted concern that rivers fed by the melting Himalayan glaciers would flood, then dry up once the glaciers retreated, endangering tens of millions of people in lowland Bangladesh. Retired Air Marshal A.K. Singh, a former commander in India’s air force, then foresaw resulting mass migrations across national borders, with militaries (including ours) becoming involved. Purportedly influenced by this, Senate Armed Services Committee members Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John Warner (R-VA) snuck some language into the National Defense Authorization Act which required the Department of Defense to consider the threat of climate change effects in its long-range strategic plans. One of those national security threats that DOD planners mentioned in 2009 was that global warming would melt the massive Himalayan ice mass. Political Science: The Winners and Losers s representation in its 2007 report that global warming would likely melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035 prompted great alarm across southern and eastern Asia where glaciers feed major rivers. As it turned out, that prediction was traced to a speculative magazine article authored by an Indian glaciologist, Syed Hasnain, which had absolutely no supporting science behind it. Hasnain worked for a research company headed by the IPCC’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri. IPCC’s report author, Marari Lai, later admitted to London’s Daily “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take action.” Well, they were successful and did get some action. This dire prediction prompted concern that rivers fed by the melting Himalayan glaciers would flood, then dry up once the glaciers retreated, endangering tens of millions of people in lowland Bangladesh. Retired Air Marshal A.K. Singh, a former commander in India’s air force, then foresaw resulting mass migrations across national borders, with militaries (including ours) becoming involved. Purportedly influenced by this, Senate Armed Services Committee members Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John Warner (R-VA) snuck some language into the National Defense Authorization Act which required the Department of Defense to consider the threat of climate change effects in its long-range strategic plans. One of those national security threats that DOD planners mentioned in 2009 was that global warming would melt the massive Himalayan ice mass. Political Science: The Winners and Losers So just how well did this sort of this political science pay off in supporting the various agendas? Well, in the case of Enron…obviously not so great. As for Al Gore, even though his carbon cash-in plans got capped he still harvested lots of the green he was peddling. His pals did okay too. Timothy Worth landed a position as Vice Chair of the United Nations Foundation and the Better World Fund. James Hansen who Al’s congressional hearings catapulted to fame is thankfully no longer at NASA, but is still scoring lucrative talking gigs in between routine arrests at Keystone XL Pipeline protest rallies. EPA’s employment growth and regulatory ambitions have obviously benefited from IPCC’s alarmist agendas. Its 2009 “endangerment finding” decreeing that atmospheric concentrations of six greenhouse gases (including CO2) “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations” was based entirely upon IPCC claims which were refuted at the time even by its in-house “Internal Study on Climate” report conclusions. That report, authored by my friend Alan Carlin who was then a senior research analyst at EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics stated: “…given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based upon a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.” Yet as IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer admitted in November 2010, “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…” And who are the real losers of such agenda-driven science? One of the biggest is climate science-related credibility. Fellow Forbes contributor Patrick Michaels recently posted an article quoting Dr. Garth Paltridge, a former chief research scientist with Australia’s prestigious Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Referring to a dilemma in the overselling of global warming, Partridge observes: “The trap was fully sprung when many of the world’s major national academies of science (such as the Royal Society in the U.K., the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S.A and the Australian Academy of Science) persuaded themselves to issue reports giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC. The reports were touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations. In effect, the academies, which are the most prestigious of the institutions of science, formally nailed their colours to the mast of the politically correct.” Partridge then predicts some potentially horrific consequences when the day of reckoning finally arrives. Noting that this day is approaching, he states: “…the average man in the street, a sensible chap who by now can smell the signs of an oversold environmental campaign from miles away, is beginning to suspect that it is politics rather than science which is driving the issue.” This, he concludes: “is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour.” When this occurs, we all lose.
  16. 1 like
    Beautiful day on the Kam. Again, on at 10am off at 2pm. Just right for ol folk. Low to no current, calm still water, scarce boat traffic save the OPP and fire dept cruising up to the fort. A few people anchored in familiar spots. Perfect time to search for aggressive Walleye. Didn't take long! Must be those #7 Flicker Shads. Oh, and maybe the worm dangling from the Red Tiger's treble helped, I don't know for sure. The beasts are there. Just gotta force feed em I guess. Nice to be so close to outstanding Walleye fishing in the middle of town. Eaters and trophy's. Life is good! Here's a tip. Pinch the barbs on the trebles or remove one. They cause no end to tangles when you use a net and the Walleye hit like freight trains anyway so you don't lose them. Good luck out there.
  17. 1 like
    Nice going Zack! Congrats! Can't really tell from the picture, did that fish have spots all the way across the tail from top to bottom? You might have a nice Coho there. AB
  18. 1 like
    Congrats Zack. First of many!!
  19. 1 like
    Caught my first salmon in my little 14 footer just outside breakwall about 7 am.
  20. 1 like
    Annual Lake Nipigon trout derby held at High Hill Harbour north of Beardmore this past weekend 22 boats entered--about 80 fishermen total. Top 3 fish 29lbs, 28lbs and 27lbs Everyone seemed to be into fish but nothing over 30lbs entered
  21. 1 like
    Post away, good to see some fish!
  22. 1 like
  23. 1 like
    BIG SMOKE

    SSS

    Congrats to you guys!! Well deserved. Win or lose, you always have a smile on your face and keep those around you laughing. Good for you guys!! Lovey
  24. 1 like
    Roger Mayer

    SSS

    Luc, Congrats, and I really mean that. I will steal this quote from Ric Flair, When you want to be the best, you gotta beat the best!!!!! Roger
  25. 1 like
    Yeah that's awesome I need to get a boat so bad gotta get off the bank congrats on a beautt pike
  26. 1 like
    Jack Fish

    SSS

    Congratulations !
  27. 1 like
    Roger Mayer

    SSS

    Luc Diotte and Pierre Lapointe Congrats guys! Roger
  28. 1 like
    Congrats on your first child. There is no better feeling than a birth of your child. Hold your child close and treasure the moment. They grow so fast. From previous posts I know you are a White Otter addict. I'll be thinking of you while we are floating on our "floaties" and fishing early and dusk. My wife and I love that time, there is NOBODY in the lake other than a few party's canoeing. They never go in to lost bay. Lost has it all, Walleye, lake trout in the two holes, Moose wandering through our site early AM We get up there late Sept before the lake trout closure also. We bird hunt the portages and fish the lake trout on some of the reefs when they are starting to spawn. The fishing can just be insane at times if we hit it right. The weather is still good and there is no one up there. Take special care of your child and mother.
  29. 1 like
    Jealous that you are heading to White Otter, unfortunately I dont think I will make it there this summer as we just had our first child in June and have a trip planned to the west coast for August. Have a good trip!
  30. 1 like
    Out tonight. One salmon 1 lakers.
  31. 1 like
    I find that the proliferation of bass in many lakes over the past few years, has a much more detrimental effect on pickeral populations than pike do.
  32. 1 like
    In order to take firewood from crown land you need to get a fuel wood permit from the mnr. They run about $30. Usually logging company's will leave the stuff they don't want in piles along the road as long as they're not in neatly stacked piles then you should be good.
  33. 1 like
    Its very unfortunate that it seems we have a system developed that seemingly regulates itself for the most part. They decide what they will insure and what they don't want to and leave you with two choices......pay massive amounts or run without. The sad part is law requires the coverage on public land and they know it. Its pretty sad when they will insure a machine capable of high speeds and not a machine that is a slow work horse like an argo or terra jet........I don't mean they won't offer coverage.....they only offer their required by law coverage through facility which has rates that many would not pay or afford. A very crooked system in many ways lmfao.
  34. 1 like
    Could be a number of things going on, one would require a bit more information about the fish community and the history of the lake(s) in question, but I can offer some generalities. It's not unheard of to see stunted populations of walleye in small lakes, particularly where it's an introduced population...introduced predators in small systems can rapidly deplete the natural prey base. Walleye can be pretty variable with their growth and age at maturity...populations under stress tend to reach maturity at a younger age and smaller size than in healthy populations, so we might expect such a stunted population chug along for quite some time. But walleye are also highly cannibalistic, especially when no other prey is available, so eventually the population could be reduced. Add to that competition and predation from pike, which seem better adapted to small lakes in this part of the world, and eventually you could see the stunted walleye population disappear altogether.
  35. 1 like
    So there is quite a bit going on with your post and these are just some guesses-- I would hesitate to call it "science" other than being based on basic fishery biology principles. Your question about small lakes with lots of 11-13" walleye suggests that a couple of things might be going on. Walleyes do reasonably well feeding on minnows but to grow to large sizes they do best when they can get fatty fish like whitefish or they have very large populations of minnows. Small lakes have less productivity capacity so it is quite possible these lakes just cannot produce enough minnow biomass to support a good population of large walleye. You could also be seeing the effects of over-harvest resulting in few to no fish >13". It is probably a combination of these factors. You didn't mention anything about other predator species or what their population structure looks like. It their population structure is solid, they could be out-competing the walleye for forage. It their population structure also seems "stunted" then that is more evidence of insufficient forage. For the lake with the logging road, I would guess that the easier access has resulted in over-harvest of the walleye population (perhaps to the point of a complete crash). It is somewhat surprising that the walleyes seem to have been eliminated, but if that is the case, it would partially explain why you aren't seeing big pike too as we all know that walleyes are a favorite prey item of pike. It takes a lot of minnows to support a 40" northern as compared to 10-15" walleyes.
  36. 1 like
    I've not posted for a while on this board but though I'd provide a report on one of the best walleye lakes in Ontario. here's what I wrote on walleye central: We just returned from an incredible 9 day “week” at Pete Johnson’s North Caribou Lake outpost. The group consisted of Walleyecentral charter member LarryS, his sister Pat and Wil and my boat partner Gary. This huge lake (80,000 acres) has to be considered as one of the best walleye lakes in Ontario – or Canada – or the world for that matter. It is remarkably fertile with minnows crowding every inch of shore line and is quite clear – you could watch fish hit the jig in 7-8 ft of water. For some reason the tannic staining in most NW Ontario lakes is only minimally present here WALLEYE – the biggest positive of walleye fishing here is the ease and frequency with which you can catch larger walleye. The sheer number of 19-21 inch fish was off the charts. It is easy for almost anyone to catch 50 walleye per day (even within sight of the cabin) with 100 per day achievable if you fish long enough – and I would estimate that 60% of the fish caught were in that 19-21 inch range. All you had to do was find 8-9 ft of water near deeper water and the fish were there and accommodating. The really large or trophy walleye (27 inch and up) eluded us – at least in this part of the lake - as our maximum was 24 inches with a few 23 inchers. Pete assures us that trophies are caught every year – but not based on our experience. PIKE – although this lake has a reputation for trophy pike (more than 40 inches) we were unable to find any of the big girls and we spend a good bit of time focusing on pike. We did manage to get some nice ones including a 39incher, 2 x 38, 37, 2 x 36, 2 x 35 and 3 x 34 and some others over 30 - lots of fun but no real trophies. A group of 8 guys that were in the cabin the week before us focused a great deal on pike and could only manage one 36 incher. BOATS AND MOTORS – by far the BEST we’ve ever had in the bush. 17ft Alaskans with floor boards, captains seats and 25 hp Evenrudes with electric starts that started first time everytime. The only issue we had was that the bilge pumps did not work and manual bailing was a pain. You can see a video of these in the like below. CABINS – quite rustic and not at all fancy but very roomy and functional. There’s a cabin for cooking/eating/drinking and one for sleeping. You can see these in more detail at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwk9...ature=youtu.be Overall, this was one of our best trips – and if we could’ve stumbled upon a few trophies it would’ve indeed been the best. The cost was reasonable – Pete charges $1520 Canadian for 7 days ($1200 US) and provides an immediate HST rebate by charging only half the HST. There is another outfitter on the opposite side of the lake who is much more expensive. We rebooked for next year in order to retest the lake for trophies. Phish
  37. 1 like
    To address this concern, one needs first ti understand the purpose of size limits. A minimum size limit can be a useful tool when the is a problem with recruitment...insufficient spawning habitat, environmental challenges, high predation of young fish, etc. Once fish reach maturity, they're past the bottleneck, but the problem is retaining enough fish to reach maturity. Maximum size limits, on the other hand, can be useful when there is high mortality of mature fish...which overfishing can certainly contribute to. The intent is to protect the majority of the spawning age fish; the theory being that (a) a healthy spawning population will produce plenty of young fish and (b) mortality rates are naturally higher in juvenile fish, therefore, smaller size classes are better able to absorb angling pressure What we have in most of northern Ontario is considered a "modified maximum size limit"...the one-over basically being a compromise - it reduces the effectiveness of the maximum size limit, but allows anglers to keep a big one if they choose - making it more acceptable to many anglers and tourist operators. Sized based regulations aren't just grabbed out of thin air...effective size limits require a thorough knowledge of growth rates, maturation schedules and recruitment across the landscape. Determining these is one of the main reasons MNRF designed the Broadscale Monitoring Program. The one over 46cm regulation was developed in Northwestern Ontario, and has subsequently been adopted through much of the rest of the province. The 46cm value was based on their understanding of growth, maturity and recruitment at the time (mid 90s). Twenty years later, many anglers would agree that the regs have done a good job of improving walleye fishing in the region. However, given the passage of time and changes to populations, it is not unreasonable to expect the criteria upon which 46cm was chosen to have shifted. However, determining whether the size limit is still appropriate, or what might do a better job, again requires an understanding of the growth, maturity and recruitment across the landscape...these types of analyses are typically completed as part of the background work for a fisheries management planning exercise.
  38. 1 like
    The pacific chinook salmon has a name for trophy sized fish. 30+ lbs is called a tyee. We should have similar names for big fish. For instance, we call a big laker a "louie" in our circles? You guys have similar names for other species? BTW... they are discovering that the average size of chinook salmon on the west coast is shrinking. Scientists believe it's because we fishermen tend to kill the biggest fish we catch. That leaves fish that are genetically smaller to do the reproducing. Consider this when you catch that "trophy".
  39. 1 like
    Trophy fish is weight length and so on but what about the aspect of getting your trophy. I know there's been multiple times out with friends and family where the trophy wasn't really what was caught but the time out doing what you enjoy
  40. 1 like
    Nice catch of fish. I also caught more pike this year on lac
  41. 1 like
    Just watch out for Drop Bears! When venturing out. And our skimpys only take Canadian tire money😏 On a serious note fishing from shore for you will be a new adventure. I have had a few Aussie friends and they loved fisheing here. Places to try would be cloud lake hazelwood lake boulevard lake kam river to list a few.
  42. 1 like
    There have been a few threats regarding fishing spots around Thunder Bay. Here's a link to one that was going a month or so ago.... http://fishingboard.thunderbayfishing.com/index.php?/topic/18467-1-hour-shore-spots/ Good luck, you're sure to catch something around here!
  43. 1 like
    I apologize naden, I blundered.
  44. 1 like
    I have been into all of them many times, I will get back to you shortly on locations for campsites, reefs and shoals, water depths, etc.
  45. 1 like
    You were right arvey. I am sure by now that members reading this thread know we have at least 3 anti's in some form and possibly an internet troll on this fishing and hunting forum. I would just advise the membership here to ignore the comments of anti's in whatever form they appear. Everyone's fishing and hunting heritage and rights are continuously being threatened by conservation/environmental groups and other individuals, not just mine. Just ask Dr. Google. Some say this bait issue should not concern us. It should. Some can speak/write like a flowing gown in a breeze. It does not change the fact that our sport is under attack and has been for some time. This attack many may remember came from anti hunting and anti fishing organizations. It was defeated. Incomplete and vague with a serious trojan horse. http://www.keepcanadafishing.com/animal-rights-bill-threatened-canadians-way-of-life/ This link is the latest threat we avoided in BC from an environmental group who will try to use their strategy template for all other regions in Canada including the Great Lakes. http://www.keepcanadafishing.com/statement-by-mp-zimmer-regarding-minister-leblancs-pncima-announcement/ It seems like once again hunters and anglers are being targeted and made the victims of radical anti-hunting and anti-fishing agenda supporters. If hunters and anglers do not stand up for their rights and privileges we could see the day that hunting and fishing may be outlawed in Canada. It will not happen at once but in little steps.http://www.merrittherald.com/could-hunting-be-outlawed-in-canada/ Do not underestimate the intentions and agendas of conservation, and environmental groups and their supporters in sheep's clothing. They are very good at hiding their true goals. As I have said before this is just the start of a complete live bait ban in Ontario. I wonder how many anglers not involved in fishing forums even know this is going on or being put forward as policy by outside groups. I have had the pleasure to have lived in Nanaimo and Abbotsford for many years and have enjoyed fishing the Fraser River and up the coast to the Queen Charlotte Islands and areas in between with my wife of 45 years. Walleye and Bass fishing is skinny and one must travel the whole province to find it. I'm sorry if I come off or sound angry as j. klister states. He/she/it/troll pops in here from time to time and got it right on the older part. Again, I consider any conservation/environmental group or individual to be anti if their agenda, intentions or actions contribute to the closure, cancellation or restriction of any part of the sport of fishing no matter which way they frame it or come at the issue. I would just advise the membership here to ignore the comments of anti's in whatever form they appear. www.keepcanadafishing.com
  46. 1 like
    What the hell does attacking my character in the first place have to do with live bait. It's past history I spoke the truth about , but your right your not worth the fight . All I see is an arrogant clown who figures the only opinion that matters is that of his or people like him and everybody else should stay quiet. Oh and by the way there's lots here in TBay i'd like to see changed but your right there's core of people that don't and i'm not one of them so your off base on that one.
  47. 1 like
    Went out tonight got three. Not big ones with this one being biggest.
  48. 1 like
    Ballast water has long been known to be one of the main sources for the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species in the great lakes and St. lawrence river. in response, canada and the United States have put in place stringent regulations governing ocean-going vessels and their ballast water. the 2006 regulations enacted by transport canada, and the 2008 regulations enacted by the St. lawrence Seaway Development corporation, require ocean-going vessels to flush their tanks with salt water before entering the St. lawrence Seaway and the great lakes. all vessels entering the seaway are checked through a joint U.S./canadian inspection program and compliance rates in 2009 were recorded at 97.9% (great lakes Ballast Water Working group, 2010). any non-compliant vessels are dealt with on a case-by-case basis to ensure that unmanaged foreign ballast water is not released in the great lakes. collectively, the canadian and U.S. St. lawrence Seaway regulations, along with monitoring, have significantly reduced the risk of aquatic invasive species entering via ship ballast tanks. if these regulations had been enacted earlier, they might have prevented many aquatic invasive species from entering the great lakes basin. https://dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net/documents/2679/stdprod-097634.pdf
  49. 1 like
    How do we know it isn't ? It's not like the MNR is properly doing their survey counts anyways to truely know the decline and incline numbers year to year in each unit !
  50. 1 like
    Nastyboys work but there are spoons that work even better, especially when you are varying your speed. I was out the other day on Black Bay and Pro King was the top producer. Moonshine lures also work very well and out-produced everything else in the box last year. Shoehorn spoons by Luhr Jensen are also good. All three of these options are found at DNR.