• 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.

Bobber Down

Lower Walleye Limits for Non Residents Zone 5

Recommended Posts

RickS

So is staying at one of the lodges, like Stanley's Resort on Eagle Lake, considered "camping on Crown Land?"  I've been going there for years and never been told that I was supposed to obtain a non-Canadian resident permit.  I thought this provision applies to people who set up their own tents or trailers, not those who stay at the lodges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dunnhuntin

If you are staying at a campground or lodge you are not camping on crown land. Lodges and campgrounds are private property. You only need a crown land camping permit if you are staying on crown land.

 

The article refers to non-resident anglers having a reduced walleye limit. This would depend on your angling licence being Ontario resident/Canadian resident/non-resident regardless of where you are staying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RickS

I hope dunnhuntin is right, but if he is, then why is the Kenora District Camp Owners Association "outraged"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pro fisherman-Stud Muffin
3 minutes ago, RickS said:

I hope dunnhuntin is right, but if he is, then why is the Kenora District Camp Owners Association "outraged"?

 

Because they may lose their American visitors due to a decreased limit. The new law cuts limits in half for non Canadian anglers


><^> ........ <^><

 

2016 Dog Lake Open Champion.

Thunder Bay BASSmasters Vice-President 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RickS

This is why I'm confused.  Dunnhuntin says the new rule doesn't apply to non-Canadians staying at a lodge, only those who are "camping" on Crown Land.  So if Dunnhuntin is correct, there is no reduction in the limit for guests of the Kenora District Camp Owners Association lodges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dunnhuntin

What I was trying to explain is that any non-resident angler has a reduced limit.

Because you are American, your angling licence will be for a non-resident of Canada.

 

I think you are confused about the camping permit. A crown land camping permit is required to camp on crown land whether you will be fishing or not. It has nothing to do with the walleye limit or your angling licence. Since you stay at a lodge, you don't need a crown land camping permit.

 

Regardless of whether you need that camping permit or not, a non-resident will have a reduced limit of fish. The limit is based on your non-resident angling licence, not a crown land camping permit. So it doesnt matter where you stay, if you are a non-resident you will have a walleye limit of two in zone 5. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RickS

I think you may be right in your conclusion, but that isn't actually what the new regulations say.  The language in the Regulations Summary state, "Holders of non-Canadian resident recreational fishing licences who are camping on Crown land may not take fish in excess of the conservation catch and possession limits (see page 12 for more information). "  I added the underlining for emphasis.  I get that I don't require a camping permit because staying at a lodge exempts me from that requirement.  But for your conclusion to be correct, my staying at a lodge must be deemed to be "camping on Crown land".  I looked pretty carefully in the Fishing Regulations and other MNRF websites for a definition of "camping on Crown land" and could not find anything that would resolve this confusion.  What I did find makes mention of "rent a camping unit (e.g., tent, trailer, etc.) as a basis for not needing a permit, but no definitive statement as to what constitutes "camping on Crown land."  If they really mean that staying at a lodge is "camping on Crown land" then they should revise the "e.g., tents, trailers, etc." to say something like tents, trailers, cabins, lodges etc." to be clear.   See   https://www.ontario.ca/page/camping-crown-land

 

And just to confuse things more,  what if I don't stay in Ontario, but instead just come across and fish in one of the affected zones for a day?  In  that situation I am clearly not "camping on Crown land."   

 

If they really mean what you said (and I think they probably do), then they should not be linking the provision to "camping on Crown land" but instead just say that any non-Canadian angler is limited to the conservation license limits in the affected areas regardless of the type of license they purchase.  I wonder if MNRF realize what effect this will have on their license revenues as all the guys who come across from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois and the rest of the midwest will almost certainly be buying conservation licenses rather than sportsman's licenses.  Perhaps that is the result they were looking for but I would think it will have a pretty significant impact on their license revenues.

 

I fully recognize Ontario's right to impose different rules on non-residents (we already pay more for our license) so the stricter limits don't upset me all that much.  I will still come and just bring home a smaller number of fish than I did in previous years.  But I would like to see the Ministry take the time to write the rules clearly in a way that can be easily understood and enforced.  If this regulation were put in place in one of the States, and I was cited for a violation based on being a non-resident who was "camping on State land", while staying in a nearby hotel or fishing camp, I can all but guarantee that it would be tossed out by the Court.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dunnhuntin

I think I see where the confusion is coming from now. That section on page 12 refers to a different regulation for multiple zones, but still only applies if camping on crown land as I defined above. This is an older regulation which doesn't apply in your case as you are not camping on crown land. If you were, you would only be able to keep a conservation limit of fish.

 

If you look at page 24 of the regs summary it shows the NEW limits for all non-residents in zone 5 no matter where you are staying. This is the regulation that the video is referring to, which does apply to you even if staying at a resort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RickS

Thanks for pointing out the page 24 stuff as that makes it clearer.  It seems odd to me that they reduced the daily limit, but still allow four fish in possession if you have a sportsman's license.  Anyway, thanks for setting me straight on this one.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dunnhuntin

Glad I could help! It can be tough to find things in the summary sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RickS

So I went back to see what had me fixated on the "camping on Crown land" issue and it is the language in paragraph 8 on pg 3.   The Ministry would be wise to reprint paragraph 8 on pg 3 and direct readers to pages 12 and 24.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mad scientist
On 1/20/2018 at 4:16 PM, RickS said:

  It seems odd to me that they reduced the daily limit, but still allow four fish in possession if you have a sportsman's license.  

 

 

This regulation was originally developed for what is now the southern portion of FMZ5 in 1999 after a NAFTA challenge rendered the previous regulation invalid.  The difference between the daily catch limit and the possession limit (which is unusual in Ontario...these are the same in most cases) was due to input from the tourism industry, who felt that the number of fish that could be taken home was an important consideration for American anglers.  This split limit has been in place for nearly 20 years in the southern half of the zone; the current change simply extends that regulation to the entirety of the zone.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RickS

Thanks for the info.  I'm sure it is important to many Americans to be able to bring home four walleyes (heck, I remember when the limit was cut from six and how that was going to be the end of the fish camps in the northwest).  So while I can understand it as a concession to the tourism operators, I don't this this will really address the underlying concerns about over-fishing as it should have at most a minimal impact on the total legal harvest by American anglers. Perhaps I am unusual in this regard, but on the days I want walleye for lunch/dinner, I harvest 1 or 2 fish as that is really all I can pack away.  So what this reduced daily limit really means is that I have to forego eating walleye on a couple of days and put that day's limit in the freezer-- something I (and I suspect many others) already do.  

 

 I wonder how long before the Ministry decides this should apply in the neighboring zones as a matter of equity.  Right now I can move a few miles up Hwy 105 from Eagle Lake and not have to give this any thought.  If I were a camp operator in the northern portion of Zone 5 I would probably be annoyed by this.  But, like most changes, people will adapt and in the end, it doesn't really have much effect on whether I can eat some fish for lunch and bring some home for later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RickS

LOL.  Be careful though-- if you p*ss Trump off we might invade.  Then you guys would be the "non-residents".

 

JUST KIDDING!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mad scientist
28 minutes ago, RickS said:

 I wonder how long before the Ministry decides this should apply in the neighboring zones as a matter of equity.  

 

Changes to recreational fishing regulations in Ontario are effected through an objective-based Fisheries Management Planning process that draws upon fish population monitoring data for each zone and includes a comprehensive public and Indigenous consultation process.  Any changes to the walleye regulations for the neighbouring FMZs (6 and 4) would be based on the ecological status of walleye in each zone, as well as the input from anglers, tourist operators, and Indigenous communities.  


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oyo
3 hours ago, RickS said:

LOL.  Be careful though-- if you p*ss Trump off we might invade.  Then you guys would be the "non-residents".

 

JUST KIDDING!

You'll have to take my pickerel from my cold, frostbitten  hands.

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MetalFishing
3 hours ago, RickS said:

LOL.  Be careful though-- if you p*ss Trump off we might invade.  Then you guys would be the "non-residents".

 

JUST KIDDING!

Are we goin to have to set fire to your white house, again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RickS
21 minutes ago, MetalFishing said:

Are we goin to have to set fire to your white house, again?

 

I think you need to wait until we have fracked and imported all of your shale-oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oyo

Its okay, I hear the current occupant thinks its a dump ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some Old Guy

We are good neighbours (neighbors)!!!

 

Roger


R.T.R. Respect the resource!

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