2013 Broadscale Fisheries Monitoring in FMZ 6

[Guest scavs]

Have I once said I know of alternative/better ways to monitor these lakes?? NO lol.... I just believe that this is counter-productive. Has the MNR stated that this is the best way to monitor populations, for all we know it could be the most cost efficient and quickest way to gather data, but not the safest procedure for the population of the fish.

You have yet to prove how broadscale positively impacts a fishery, I have merely expressed my dislike for monitoring fish with nets as fish do parish. Keep living on that " well if the MNR does it " mentality.

[dano 8]

Yeah you're right j.klister I'm too stoopid to read through hundreds of technical documents.

It's impossible to support and believe broadscale after seeing a net full of dead fish.

[Guest FreshwaterFisherman]

Wow

[j.klister 24]

Scavs, on what do you base your belief? It's great if it's just a belief or a negative reaction to seeing big dead fish in nets, but I would think that as a society we would want to base our management decisions with respect to fish on facts rather than beliefs, would we not?

Some of your points are probably accurate: budgetary considerations are probably very important in designing these kinds of programs. I know that when I do similar things for a client, I have a budget, and I can't design something that comes in over that budget. None of us want our taxes or license fees to go up now do we?

By saying that you want me to prove that this has a positive impact, you are asking me to do the impossible. I don't do this for my job, and only those people who do can determine the answer to that question. Based on your responses here, my guess is that you won't believe them (particularly if they happen to work for the government of Ontario) unless the conclusion that they come to is that "netting=bad".

What evidence would it take to convince you that netting (as done by this particular program) has little impact on a population in a lake? The evidence that would convince me would be a replicated and controlled before-after-control-impact study, where angling success and effort is consistently monitored in a set of randomly selected lakes for in year 1, in year 2, half the lakes are netted and half are not, then in year 3 you do the same angling success/effort survey as year 1. If the netted lakes show lower angling success, then I would take that as evidence that it had a negative effect.

I am nearly certain that such studies have been done somewhere. Maybe have a look and see if you can find it (scholar.google.ca is a good place to start).

[j.klister 24]

Dano, I don't understand the need for the personal attacks here, all I'm saying is that technical documents are hard to read. That's why I didn't do much more than skim it myself to get the general idea.

[Guest Steelheadmagnet]

So what if a lakes population is already depleting, now you go and net and kill half of that population? That makes sense

[Guest scavs]

Then I urge you to stop being "pro-broadscale" haha until you have proof that these programs have a positive effect. Because as you may have noticed from other posts, people have on many of occasions stumbled upon MNR nets to find dead fish (proving that it does have a negative effect).

The onus is on you to prove that these procedures are viable, get reading!

[j.klister 24]

Steelheadmagnet, how do you know if a lakes population is already depleting if you haven't been monitoring it?

Again, in my 5-10 minutes of googling, what I was able to discover is that on average, this netting process kills 1-2% of the fish population in a lake every 5 years. The cost-benefit analysis says that the information gathered from sacrificing these fish is worth it in terms of better management decisions on regional lakes in general. I don't know if I found the definitive source for this, but again anyone commenting is invited to find the data to prove me wrong and I will happily admit that I was wrong.

[j.klister 24]

Scavs, how are you going to show that they have a positive (or negative) effect until you actually go out and do the data collection and analysis? Until you actually go out and do it and analyze the data, then everything is speculation.

The only thing I am "for" is basing decisions on actual facts and data, rather than beliefs or anecdotes.

Anyways, boys, it's been a slice. My son just woke up from his nap so I've gotta go. Maybe I'll post some fishing stoke some time soon to make up for any negativity here.

Remember, the words of the great John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?". Remember that when it comes to any of the opinions here. They are words I like to live by.

[Guest scavs]

First of all stop referring to MNR studies regarding MNR procedures... say on their first run of this program things go horribly wrong and 50% of netted fish die...... will that be in a report??? I highly doubt it

Good debate though and I will leave it at that.....

[Guest scavs]

The negative effect is in regards to the dead fish found in the nets??? where are the positive effects..... surely you speak for yourself when you use the word "speculations"

[bin fishin lots 125]

God. Its cut and dry folks. Argue amongst yourselves for days to come!!! NETTING KILLS FISH. I knew that when I was 5 with a j.k education.

[bin fishin lots 125]

And catch and release does work!! I've caught the same dam pike three times in an hour or so. I've caught and released plenty of steelhead with fins clipped or tagged. Either they hatched with with a tag in there back,LMFAO, or someone caught, tagged, and released. Jesus!

[bin fishin lots 125]

And what the hell broad scale study. Studying how many decomposed dead spawners they've caught in gill nets!!!! Absolutely f'n horrible! Massacre! What use is a dead decomposed fish to anything or anybody. Fertilizer and that's all!

[gsambray 172]

Just wait soon to come broad scale netting of moose and deer to see how many were around. I did google about netting of fish by mnr. They think it will work but common sense tells me other. Myself i am allowed 1 walleye over 18inches to protect the spawners. How many get killed in the nets never to spawn again. But in my opinion...maybe someone who keeps saying google it google it should google themselves up a new forum to join. Im also sure Rogers gonna have a hayday with all this mess.

[Resource Pimp 60]

They should use fyke nets instead of gill nets if mortality is an issue.

[Guest FreshwaterFisherman]

I don't think anybody knows enough. How many nets per lake? How big are the nets? How often are they checked? I don't like netting either but coming on here going "you Prove it's positive!"...."no you prove it's negative!" Gets nowhere. I've read your entire convo and you all achieved nothing. To hate on each other for something none of us are involved in, or informed about is foolish. C'mon guys. To whoever posted to mnr, grow up. Your probably talking to someone who doesn't have much to do with the netting and your being rude. If we want to continue having the ask mnr section we need to have a certain level of respect. Telling him to give his head a shake? C'mon now. Why don't we just stop arguing over it. I understand you have seen dead fish in nets, I also understand how disgusting that may be. But there is no reason at all for personal attacks. This is a friendly website where debates are welcomed, but this is like listening to a bunch of kids argue over something neither have an impact on, involvement in, or knowledge of. I don't *think* the nets are a good idea, but I also don't think this argument will ever get anywhere. Stop attacking each other. Obtain solid facts, you seeing one net full of dead fish may be less than a percent of the nets out there. We can assume the rest kill just as many fish, but than we are assuming. I have come upon empty nets before, doesn't mean all are empty, or all are full. All I'm saying is until we have raw data and facts to 100% back your claim, than we should all just chill out and stop being rude to each other. Have a good day all.

[GAR 0]

We pay license fees so we deserve the resource. Why should we let the MNR take our fish? What a waste of money! Lets just fish. 10 years later..................................Why is fishing so much slower? Ooops, maybe we should have kept track of fish populations. Even if EVERY fish in a net is killed at least we have a warning bell before a fish population crashes to an unsustainable level. Netting is not ideal, but at least its a warning signal for managers. Unless we are all willing to step up and organize a volunteer sampling program for hundreds of lakes using rod and reel then I guess we are stuck with sacrificing fish for the greater good of the resource. Aaaaa screw it lets just keep fish. The fish population will be ok, right???????!

[j.klister 24]

Congratulations to gsambray for actually looking things up for himself and doing some reading, and also to Resource Pimp for making an actual suggestion on how to potentially do this better.

A follow up question to you Mr. Pimp. Is this something new or experimental net type that has only come up in the last few years (I googled fyke net and it just looks like a bigger minnow trap, so I think it's probably been around for a while). Is there some reason why you think that the professional fisheries biologists who desgined this program would not have considered this option already?

Mr. Fishin Lots, I have a follow up question for you as well. Does your current education (assuming its beyond jk now) tell you how to calculate anything about the health or size of a fish population on the basis of the sample of fish caught in this program? Because the education of a professional fisheries biologist gives them the understanding about how to do this. If you want to teach yourself a little about how to do this, here's a nice little report that you can use to start with:

/>ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/x8498e/x8498e00.pdf

Note that it's not even put out by the MNR! Therefore, there shouldn't be any reason here for anyone to suspect that this report is biased or hiding something.

Just as a last point, since it doesn't seem to be clear to everyone. I understand that there are dead fish in the nets when they do this. Even my many, many years of university education doesn't blind me to this fact. The rates that I looked up were as follows: 50% of the fish, on average, in the net are dead. This represents 1-2% of the population in a lake. This happens once every 5 years. The justification is that the information gathered provides more beneift to fish management in general than the cost of sacrificing these fish. That's the justificaion and the positive impact that everyone hopes happens.

[j.klister 24]

Thank you Mr. GAR, at least there is one other logical and reasonable person willing to post here, and also to Mr. Fisherman above that for making many important points that I was also thinking but hadn't yet made.

The only other thing, Mr Fisherman, is that it is very easy to find answers to all of your questions. It's all in the design and implementation manual for the broad scale monitoring program, easily available online for you to look at if you want to do so. As I mentioned yesterday, it took me less than 10 minutes to find this very same information.

[Guest FreshwaterFisherman]

There is no realistic way to manage populations aside from a random controlled sample. This is a random controlled sample. I don't like it but the mnr needs to gather info and anglers are a poor resource for forming a realistic accurate account of populations and species within a lake. With anglers you introduce skill, methods of catch, area, luck, various weather conditions and I'm sure other factors that would skew the data. I am 100% for using a method with lower or no mortality. This seems to be more about proving the other guy wrong than it is finding a solution or alternative.

[Guest FreshwaterFisherman]

I know the mnr nets walleye at the mouth of current river in what I've heard people refer to as a trap net. It's low mortality due to the fact that it is done for tagging purposes. As far as I know they track the walleye movement between the current river and the kam river. With all these "safer" nets it has to make you wonder why they wouldn't already be doing this. Maybe they know something we don't.

[Resource Pimp 60]

Congratulations to gsambray for actually looking things up for himself and doing some reading, and also to Resource Pimp for making an actual suggestion on how to potentially do this better.

A follow up question to you Mr. Pimp. Is this something new or experimental net type that has only come up in the last few years (I googled fyke net and it just looks like a bigger minnow trap, so I think it's probably been around for a while). Is there some reason why you think that the professional fisheries biologists who desgined this program would not have considered this option already?

Mr. Fishin Lots, I have a follow up question for you as well. Does your current education (assuming its beyond jk now) tell you how to calculate anything about the health or size of a fish population on the basis of the sample of fish caught in this program? Because the education of a professional fisheries biologist gives them the understanding about how to do this. If you want to teach yourself a little about how to do this, here's a nice little report that you can use to start with:

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/x8498e/x8498e00.pdf

Note that it's not even put out by the MNR! Therefore, there shouldn't be any reason here for anyone to suspect that this report is biased or hiding something.

Just as a last point, since it doesn't seem to be clear to everyone. I understand that there are dead fish in the nets when they do this. Even my many, many years of university education doesn't blind me to this fact. The rates that I looked up were as follows: 50% of the fish, on average, in the net are dead. This represents 1-2% of the population in a lake. This happens once every 5 years. The justification is that the information gathered provides more beneift to fish management in general than the cost of sacrificing these fish. That's the justificaion and the positive impact that everyone hopes happens.

I watched fisheries crews in Wisconsin back in the 60's use fyke nets to catch and strip walleyes of eggs and milt for their hatcheries. Cost is probably a factor as to why they use gill netting here. When I worked at the MNR fire center in the 80's, fisheries were making their own gill nets there in the same building. Cutting to length off of a long spool of maybe 2000 ft and adding the weights and floats. For the cost of one fyke net, they can probably buy 3 or 4 spools of gill netting. Just a guess.

[Guest scavs]

I believe Fyke nets are more effective in shallow water where gill nets reach bottom? correct me if i'm wrong

[Resource Pimp 60]

Looks like fyke nets can be used in deep water. fyke.doc