Sign in to follow this  
tracker

Draft Strategic Policy for Bait Management - Meeting in June

Recommended Posts

j.klister

Bobber, I see you are capable of using the copy and paste functionality on your computer.  That's great for an old guy!  

Let that be a lesson to all you other old guys:  don't let anyone tell you that you can't stop learning new things as you age, even bobber is capable of it!

 

Since as I mentioned earlier that I like to debate in good faith, let me see if I can summarize what I think your argument is on this topic.

 

(1) Everyone who expresses any kind of agreement with, or even suggest they understand the reasoning behind, the currently proposed very slight and probably reasonable curbing of the use of live bait in Ontario is a greenpeace/PETA eco crazy who also wants to ban all fishing and hunting and take away all your guns.  Not only that, they are also an internet troll who's voices need to be suppressed and silenced.

 

This is a pretty big leap of logic here, and even your best buddy Arvey doesn't like it when someone tries to shut down people with different opinion, he even said so himself, see below:

 

On 6/23/2017 at 5:38 AM, arvey said:

.....who figures the only opinion  that matters is that of his or people like him and everybody else should stay quiet.....

 

Come on Arvey, show again how you have the balls to say anything to anybody at anytime and tell Bobber to stop from infringing on my freedom of speech just because I disagree with him! 

 

(2) The same people who express even a very small agreement with this very small curbing of live bait use are part of  a vast eco-facist (or is it eco-communist, I'm not sure anymore) conspiracy to fake all the science about acid rain, climate change, habitat destruction, etc., etc., for the purposes of enriching themselves and destroying all of western civilization.

 

Am I understanding your argument correctly?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bobber Down

Lol. The anti fishing troll came back!! - no one cares what you summarize and think. You just try to egg on members into an argument.  "even your best buddy Arvey" - the last time I met arvey was in 1969 when his fist landed on my chin. Go away troll. Go bother another forum.


Tomorrow is never guaranteed to anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pastor norm

Bobber Down.  You just cited an editorial article in the Merritt Herald published in April of 2016. It was an opinion piece that referred to Bill C-246 which would have criminalized the harvest and processing of shark fins, the use of dog and cat hair to produce consumer goods, and actions involving reckless and willfully cruel deaths in the area of agriculture. It was a private member bill and stood little chance of becoming law. However the Herald writer (and yourself) saw it as an ominous sign that the "anti" agenda was step by step moving to eliminate hunting and fishing rights in Canada.

 

It was defeated on October 6 in the fall of 2016.  

 

Please show respect for people who are in the angling/hunter community but do not share your paranoia or your particular points of view.  I find it a sign of weakness in the argument when it loads up with reams of "points" not really related to the matter at hand but are intended to intimidate or confuse (look up "Gish's Gallop" in Google).  

 

I am just not buying it, BD. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pastor norm

Incidently.. Acid rain is not a hoax.  It used to be that all you had to do to make your aluminum fishing boat's hull bright and shiny was to launch it in a Sudbury lake downwind of the stack.  Anyone who claims acid rain is a hoax is very likely wrong on a lot of "alternative facts".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bobber Down

"not really related to the matter at hand" - The matter at hand is clearly stated in previous posts. There can be no mistaking the agendas of anti's. Again, the fishing and hunting community must 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.

 


Tomorrow is never guaranteed to anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amia Calva

Acidification of lakes is a pretty significant concern. The ELA (Experimental Lakes Area) had a pretty good experiment on it back in the day. They found that fairly low concentrations of acid had more of an impact than expected. Sub-Lethal concentrations of acid were still killing Lake Trout, even though they survived those concentrations without any issue in a lab. The acid wasn't killing the fish, it was killing their food. So the fish for the most part survived they just couldn't reproduce, and looked closer to beef jerky than fish.

 

 Most Northwestern Ontario lakes are oligotrophic, meaning they have very low concentrations of calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate which help buffer the pH. Most calcium carbonate in lakes comes from limestone deposits underwater, the Canadian Shield is rather lacking in limestone. So, it doesn't take a lot to drop the pH of a lake.

 

Anyways, the results lead to stricter policies for mines and energy production, it had no impact on anglers. Unless you fish below a mine, in which case, the fishing improved. Lakes do recover with time as the acidic compounds drop out of solution and get buried in the sediment.  

 

This same scientific and environmental found the problem of lake eutrophication was phosphorus not nitrogen. So, instead of banning fertilizers near water, the phosphorus in fertilizer declined and the problem was resolved.

 

I don't care much for hurricanes or glacial mountain things. But lake acidification is something we should care about in Northwestern Ontario. Also, it would be good to judge the WCS on their articles, not who their parent organization has previously associated with. Right now they are focusing on the effects of acid rain on lake trout, and the effects of hydroelectric dams on Lake Sturgeon. They do not have any other fish related projects at the moment. None of these negatively effect anglers in any way, in fact do quite the contrary. A way to get Sturgeon around dams would mean more hydroelectric plants.  You can access all of their articles using https://sci-hub.cc/ and plugging the url into there. Since I am no longer a student, this is what I've been relying on :(.

 

The point is: a lot of scientists are also fishermen, not every environmental group is anti-fishing

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bobber Down

Amia, - "They (wcs) do not have any other fish related projects at the moment" other than the ones you mention - however they (wcs) clearly state their mandate/agenda/objective with this (fish related) strategic bait policy is Ban all live bait in Ontario. It doesn't matter why they want it. They still want it. It doesn't get any clearer than that. What don't you understand about that. It doesn't matter that they offer a  compromise, recommendation or alternative. They still want a total live bait ban and will continue to push for it. I liken it to a group of protesters standing in a park yelling into megaphones what do we want, when do we want it. "what do we want" "Ban all live bait in Ontario" "When do we want it" "now" It's like a union and company negotiation. Union asks for a pay increase of $5 an hour when they will accept $3, knowing $3 will more likely to be accepted as the alternative. Nest round they will ask for the $2 to get the original $5 they asked for in the first place. I hope you can follow that. As I have previously stated the fishing industry is under attack again, 18 times since 1999 according to the ofoh. I agree not every environmental group is anti fishing, but this one's mandate/agenda/objectives/actions/intentions clearly clearly CLEARLY state otherwise. The fishing and hunting community must 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. Have you caught your longnose sucker yet?

no.jpg


Tomorrow is never guaranteed to anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amia Calva

Nope, missed the longnose suckers again. Thanks for asking :)

 

Got 9 White suckers at the mouth of the current river (I found a rig to bottom fish the fast current!), and 20 in the McIntyre. I never thought to try the Kam. They are probably at the mouth of the current, I just think my timing was off. As for right now I don't have any new species to catch without a boat (unless you can get whitefish and burbot from shore this time of year), so I am going to try and help get a friend of mine into some brook trout (there are quite a few in the McIntyre right now), then shoot for salmon late August/early September on my way home. Going to take 6 days along the trans Canada with my Dad first week of September, then it will be a while before I am back in Thunder Bay. I will definitely miss this place. Also hoping to get into some walleye, no luck for them so far.

 

I missed the ban all live bait in Ontario part. That is my bad. I'm hoping that this isn't a slippery slope situation

https://www.wcscanada.org/News/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/8166/Ontario-Live-Bait-Fisheries-Whats-at-Stake.aspx

^ Did not read this before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
arvey

This live bait issue is suppose to protect against the spread of such invasive things as V.H.S and other invasive species . Okay. Has there ever been a study done to determine if this can survive in our cold climate? If there has been what are the findings ? You can be sure that if the finds were that it would not survive the government will not tell you because there would be no reason for this live bait issue. As per usual the government and M.N.R. want to keep you uninformed and, if they really wanted everybody to support this every retail business that has anything to do with fishing would have had posters advertising this issue and the public meeting .The only place I read about it is here and without that I would have never known. Next. V.H.S. has been around what 15 yrs . So why the panic now  why wasn't it jumped on right away?

Now the killing of live bait. I'm on one side of a pond a bait dealer is on the other , we both have minnows I keep mine for personal use he sells his . I don't have to kill mine the angler who buys his does after 2 wks. WHY? Keeping a receipt this questioned was asked at the meeting , the answer was to stop people from reusing it, and to stop the black market bait sales in the sentence the MNR person said they're looking at having the dealer date stamping your receipt. So tell me if your receipt is date stamped how can you reuse it any bait you have with you after the due date should  have been killed.

Then there's your zones we have fishing zones now you have bait zones and the 2 don't match not even close no K.I.S.S. method used here. This bait issue should be ranked right up there with the cancelation of the bear hunt , gaining votes and a cash grab through bait sales . ( squeezing the little guy bait dealers .) I would just like add at present there is no fee if you trap your own bait and keep a log book , you can be sure there'll will be and that will probably be purchased or an extra fee added to your fishing permit or outdoors card , again another cash grab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bobber Down

Arvey - Not only a cash grab through live bait sales if there is any live bait to be had after wholesalers and retailers cannot make a living and close their doors. When a full live bait ban is implemented this scenario that just happened to me and the wife will be more common.

 

Now I consider us to be average fisher people. Maybe fish more than the average guy but hey I'm retired raised a family and now can enjoy some relaxation. Anyway, we were  trolling the Kam. I was using a little joe with a minnow. Never caught a walleye using trolling plastic on the end of a joe. The wife was using Flicker Shads and Flicker minnows. Caught a few fish, nothing pectacular, just a nice sunny day. Oh, snag I yelled. Well I never got that little joe and minnow back.

 

Cost? Well I make all my joe's so consider the component cost in pennies so lets say 10 cents. The minnow costs 40 cents because I buy them from a bait retailer. So total cost was 50 cents. Sales tax cost was 6.5 cents.

 

Now here is the difference. Wife managed to lose 4 flicker baits for diff reasons at $7 each. Total loss $28. Tax - $3.64. So if your one of the 2 million anglers in Ontario trolling around using hard baits and you get snagged up and lose them (unavoidable it happens to everyone) because live bait is banned.......well that's a nice 7 million increase in sales tax very quickly to replace them. Is it not. Not every angler uses flicker baits but you get my meaning. A lot of hard baits cost over $20. each. I can see the tax man rubbing his hands vigorously.

 

So, is there some possible underlying money grab here whether intentional or unintentional? You be the judge.


Tomorrow is never guaranteed to anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
arvey
15 minutes ago, Bobber Down said:

Arvey - Not only a cash grab through live bait sales if there is any live bait to be had after wholesalers and retailers cannot make a living and close their doors. When a full live bait ban is implemented this scenario that just happened to me and the wife will be more common.

 

Now I consider us to be average fisher people. Maybe fish more than the average guy but hey I'm retired raised a family and now can enjoy some relaxation. Anyway, we were  trolling the Kam. I was using a little joe with a minnow. Never caught a walleye using trolling plastic on the end of a joe. The wife was using Flicker Shads and Flicker minnows. Caught a few fish, nothing pectacular, just a nice sunny day. Oh, snag I yelled. Well I never got that little joe and minnow back.

 

Cost? Well I make all my joe's so consider the component cost in pennies so lets say 10 cents. The minnow costs 40 cents because I buy them from a bait retailer. So total cost was 50 cents. Sales tax cost was 6.5 cents.

 

Now here is the difference. Wife managed to lose 4 flicker baits for diff reasons at $7 each. Total loss $28. Tax - $3.64. So if your one of the 2 million anglers in Ontario trolling around using hard baits and you get snagged up and lose them (unavoidable it happens to everyone) because live bait is banned.......well that's a nice 7 million increase in sales tax very quickly to replace them. Is it not. Not every angler uses flicker baits but you get my meaning. A lot of hard baits cost over $20. each. I can see the tax man rubbing his hands vigorously.

 

So, is there some possible underlying money grab here whether intentional or unintentional? You be the judge.

I agree myself and a buddy talked about the same thing the other day. Now I have to get ready to head out to Sandstone and fight with people who don't care about the 21 day camping law. Sooner or later somebody will get hurt and then some action will be taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mad scientist
2 hours ago, arvey said:

Has there ever been a study done to determine if this can survive in our cold climate? If there has been what are the findings ?

 

VHS was confirmed in the American waters of Lake Superior in 2010.

 

http://www.great-lakes.net/envt/flora-fauna/invasive/pdf/vhs_glc_factsheet_2011.pdf

 


I'm going out to fish. - John 21:3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mad scientist
2 hours ago, arvey said:

 

Then there's your zones we have fishing zones now you have bait zones and the 2 don't match not even close no K.I.S.S. method used here. 

 

The bait management zones are all aggregations of the existing FMZs.  BMZ A corresponds to FMZs 3, 8, and the portion of 2 where bait isn't already prohibited. BMZ B corresponds to FMZ 4&5.  BMZ C corresponds to FMZ 6&7.  The BMZ boundaries match the corresponding FMZ boundaries exactly.


I'm going out to fish. - John 21:3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pastor norm

I for one am an angler very much concerned for the protection of our environment and threatened species as well as the humane treatment of animals, whether they are wild or domestic.  I have contributed to various environmental groups that fit with my values as a typical Canadian citizen and I don't think this contradicts my support fish and game activities as well as conversations with fellow fishermen, MNR officials, and scientists who help me understand our environment. I am not afraid of criticisms leveled at the fishing community when I see practices that are indeed harming the resources that ALL Canadians share.

 

Do not think my point of view makes me an "anti" nor does it make me a climate change denier, an acid raid denier, an anti-government and anti science radical, a communist, a secret lobbyist for PETA, a Young Earth Creationist, nor an anti-vaxxer.  I am committed to working with fellow Canadians to find the best solutions in which all citizens rights are respected.  Most MPs in our democratic institutions feel the same way and tend to treat others with the same respect.

 

As the resounding defeat of Bill C-246 shows (2/3 of the MPs voted it down), Canada is NOT heading down the road of outlawing hunting and fishing.  

 

So why not be reasonable and cooperative?  Why not be a little more generous when it comes to the motives of other Canadians who have real concerns about bait and the environment?   Perhaps a day will come when fishing and hunting will be banned as a terrible threat to the environment and our Canadian way of life. I don't imagine that ever happening but it could. But IF it does happen, it will be because a vast majority of Canadian citizens have been convinced that hunters and anglers are abusing our living resources and are refusing any attempt to protect these resources.  

 

Last post in this matter. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bobber Down

The disease likes the temp to be 2 to 12 C or 37 to 54 F. but has been shown, experimentally, to replicate at temps up to 77 F. There has been mention about die offs in some links. Records of significant wild fish die-offs in Europe as a result of VHSV are notably missing.

 

Sensational stories about several large mortality events in the Great Lakes traced to VHSV are concerning. The largest die offs have been in populations of freshwater drum, round gobies, gizzard shad, and muskies. Researchers with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources examined the impact of the first large die off of freshwater drum in Lake Ontario in 2005. Their conclusion: The abundance of drum age 1 yr and older did not decline after the die off. Either the number of drum that died was insignificant relative to the total population or deaths caused by the disease replaced deaths that would have occurred due to other causes. Paradoxically, there was a significant increase in young of year drum abundance after the disease outbreak.

 

The researchers suggest that the rapid and visual accumulation of dead fish may have caused an initial over estimation of the die off’s effect. Frequently, the size of a fish die off gets magnified in news reports. Additionally, inappropriately equating VHSV to the Ebola virus which has an extremely high fatality rate tends to increase the scare and shock factor.

 

The die off of muskies in Lake St. Clair created great concern. Muskies appear especially susceptible and it is understandably distressing to see large and trophy size muskies dead and dying. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources reports that several thousand muskies died in Lake St. Clair in 2006. They also indicate that this was a relatively small component of the population (estimated 2-4%). Muskies continue to provide a strong sport fishery in the area, although it is not yet clear if there have been population level effects. No similar musky mortality events have occurred there in subsequent years.

 

Are fish populations doomed? The short answer is "Nobody knows for sure." Looking at the history of the disease, where it has infected wild fish around the world over the last 45 years, and what has occurred in the Great Lakes over the last six years, may help to put the threats in perspective.

 

If VHS does find its way into the waters, don't panic … evidence to date suggests that VHS won't doom the fisheries we know and love.


Tomorrow is never guaranteed to anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
arvey
5 hours ago, mad scientist said:

 

The bait management zones are all aggregations of the existing FMZs.  BMZ A corresponds to FMZs 3, 8, and the portion of 2 where bait isn't already prohibited. BMZ B corresponds to FMZ 4&5.  BMZ C corresponds to FMZ 6&7.  The BMZ boundaries match the corresponding FMZ boundaries exactly.

FM zone 6 is a big area by looks of the bait management zone you have a @ c in that zone . What I was getting at was why not make all of zone 6 a single bait zone area. If I buy bait in zone 6 I can use it in bait management zone c. The way it is now you've cut zone 6 in half and that's what I meant by not lining up. In other words what ever fm zone you buy your bait in you can use it in that zone only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mad scientist
5 hours ago, arvey said:

FM zone 6 is a big area by looks of the bait management zone you have a @ c in that zone . What I was getting at was why not make all of zone 6 a single bait zone area. If I buy bait in zone 6 I can use it in bait management zone c. The way it is now you've cut zone 6 in half and that's what I meant by not lining up. In other words what ever fm zone you buy your bait in you can use it in that zone only.

 

All of FMZ 6 is in BMZ C.


I'm going out to fish. - John 21:3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
arvey
51 minutes ago, mad scientist said:

 

All of FMZ 6 is in BMZ C.

FMZ 6 goes up past Lake Nipigon If BMZ c goes that far then my mistake I apologize , just didn't look that way on the map. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mad scientist
8 hours ago, arvey said:

FMZ 6 goes up past Lake Nipigon If BMZ c goes that far then my mistake I apologize , just didn't look that way on the map. 

Yup...the BMZ boundaries are based entirely on the existing FMZ boundaries.


I'm going out to fish. - John 21:3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
arvey
14 minutes ago, mad scientist said:

Yup...the BMZ boundaries are based entirely on the existing FMZ boundaries.

like I said my mistake , when you look at the little colored map of the bmz it's hard to tell . I found this interesting.

B39L3WXV.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fred

I would like to know what the fines are for having no receipt or using older minnows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  



  • Donate to T.B.F.

    Help me out here folks! All donations go back into upgrading the site!


    5% of donation goal reached.
    Donate Sidebar by DevFuse
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.