NOSA pushing to close Savanne River

[mad scientist 140]

Folks, I'm not trying to get anybody pissy. For those of you who got something useful out of my posts on this topic, thank you for the compliments. For others who are somehow offended, I apologize; my intent was to educate, not offend. I'll try to clarify some things.

First, let me be clear on the purpose of the Apple Lake scenario. Made up names, made up places, made up numbers. As a scientist (I like to think of myself as the genuine variety), I try to be up front about what I don't know. I know a little bit about what's going on at Lac, but I know a lot about the theory and process of fisheries management. The situation at Lac is not unique...this kind of thing happens all over the province, probably all over the continent. So I don't need to know the specifics about what's going on at Lac to talk in general terms about the pros and cons of changing regulations. BUT...if I start speculating about what "might" be going on, biologically, on Lac, somebody, somewhere is going to cut and paste something, take it out of context, and say 'Hey, look what this guy said'. So it behooves me to use a clearly imaginary scenario so that people don't forget that I'm trying to be up front about what I don't know. OK? Any resemblance to the real IPad River is purely coincidental.

Second, like it or not, economics and politics absolutely belong in MNR. It's the government!!! How could it not consider economics and politics?!? Consider MNR's second Organizational Goal: "Support Economic Prosperity for Ontario - Ontario’s natural resources contribute to sustainable economies and

ecosystems". Sure, it gets frustrating when the scientists says "Do X" and the economists say "Do Y", but like I keep saying, that's why MNR has public advisory groups and consultation processes...so the public gets a chance to look at the pros and cons of the options that are being considered - to weigh the benefits to the economy against the cost to the resource. Or vice versa.

As to the advice of the oldtimers; allow me to apologize to the oldtimers out there for any perceived ageism. I intended no affront. The point that I was trying to make is that we often hear stories about the Good Old Days, but what is often missing from these stories is an understanding of why they were good. Why was the fishing so good on Lac fifty years ago, and what has changed since then? Some things can be managed for, others can't. The base productivity of the lake can't be managed. The bass are there, for good or ill. Climate change is happening (I don't mean to offend any Climate Change Deniers out there, but just go with me on this one...). The fishery of fifty years ago is good reference data, but knowing what is happening today is a lot more valid in managing the issues of today.

I can't speculate on MNR's budget for their Broadscale Monitoring program, or any of their other programs for that matter. Last I heard, FMZ 6 round 2 field work was completed in 2014, plans for completing round 2 in zones 4, 5 and 7 over the next couple of years were on track. But please don't cut and paste this statement out of context, because my knowledge of this is second hand. Besides, the provincial budget for 2015 is still pending. However, I do know that MNR likes to hold up the Broadscale program as an example of one of their great successes of the past ten years, so I'd speculate that the program is going to continue.

As for the sustainability question: Again, I am not familiar with the monitoring program on Lac or the data that has come out of it, so I can't say whether the statement that the lake is on the edge of sustainable is correct or not. And keep in mind that there are a couple of different ways to calculate MSY (the science has been improved over time). But without being specific to Lac, I can say that in some situations, running right on the edge of sustainable harvest is a good thing. Being at Maximum Sustainable Yield does not mean impending doom of the fishery...it is, after all, why we call it "sustainable". For big, highly productive lakes, that have a large enough population base to rebound from an occasional year of high harvest, sitting right at MSY may actually be a desirable objective...these lakes tend to influence what kind of fishing effort is happening on other nearby lakes, which may be less able to withstand high effort. Keep in mind that MNR doesn't just manage Lac in isolation...what they do there influences where people fish throughout FMZ 6, and to a lesser extent the entire region. In other words, keeping people happily fishing on Apple Lake also keeps them off of Pear and Plum, which may be less able to support fishing pressure.

Look, I know that whatever I say here, there are going to be some people who don't believe me, some people who don't understand me, and some people that are just so worked up that they won't be convinced regardless of what anyone says. But let me close with this...MNR biologists, DFO biologists, Conservation Authority...these agencies have some smart people working for them (and no, I'm not trying to imply that there aren't other people out there who are smart). Smart people, well-trained people, people who genuinely want to do a good job in managing the fishery, because they are also users of the fishery. There is no conspiracy to screw Joe Angler! Those same people also want to involve all you anglers in the decision making process, because they know you care. Quit berating them and let them do their jobs...they're good at it. And if you really want to have a positive influence, participate in the planning process instead to trying to do an end-run around it.

[Lyle Reiner 174]

Who is Joe Angler and wtf does he have to do with apple lake? Lol I'm kidding

Thanks Mad Scientist for the informative posts

Also Thank you everyone for keeping this thread in a great hearted discussion!

[Monks 164]

Good read. Scientifically points covered well. Interaction between walleye and bass not. Walleye an apex predator. Yes people complain about bass on a spot after they fish it for years an remove the walleye. Bass then move in, hence Shebandowan. I digress.

My biggest take on all this, as an angler and hunter with a degree in the science field is that much like hunting, anglers are their worst enemy.

Yes a redirect.

Anglers and hunters...outdoors people are their worst enemy.

Instead of getting together like anti hunting and fishing groups do, we argue over such things.

Imagine the strength we could have and impact on Managment decisions should we get together. Yes I know there are some current groups out there, but obviously there not encompassing a broad need.

If I take anything from this, its that we as outdoors people need a better direction to improve fisheries and wildlife mgmt and a better line of communication with the MNR and biologists and various user groups.

If not posts like this would not exist.

[rodman 4]

Reading up on the history of Lake Nipigon and its river system regarding fish populations is enough to realize something should be done to preserve our precious waters....before they become decimated. Savanne should be closed...but not just for a select few...for everyone!

[AB 98]

No one is debating whether or not the fishery should be protected.

There appears to be an understood agreement that the participants want to see improvement in the fishery by some means. The method of protection is the main point of contention.

Yes, making the river a sanctuary does appear to be a common sense approach.....But if a new restriction on angling opportunities is going to be put in place, lets make sure its not a half measure.

Making the river a sanctuary, without looking at the harvest and population data will essentially be putting up a home free banner for the fish that reach it.

Perhaps we should re-visit the local general season closure date on Lac to address winter harvest rates in conjunction with the protection of the Savanne River....that would make some sense to wouldn't it?

iceman

[tracker 61]

Perhaps we should re-visit the local general season closure date on Lac to address winter harvest rates in conjunction with the protection of the Savanne River....that would make some sense to wouldn't it?

iceman

I was one of the whiners who was involved with getting the one month of the winter season back. The major push was from an organizaton newly formed called the Lac des Mille Lacs Ice Fishermans Alliance which I was a part of. NOSA was just getting formed as an oganizaton at that time. The MNR, LDMIFA, NOSA, OFAH and several other volunteers put in a lot of time and effort at that time to do a major roaming winter creel. The results of this creel showed that the winter harvest numbers for walleye were minimal compared to the summer harvest. The result, the one month of the winter was season was restored. There was no impact to the summer anglers. The MNR does have summer and winter creel data for almost 20 years, showing the major impact to walleye harvest is from the summer anglers.

Perhaps one of the MNR staff who are following this thread could provide the percentage of winter catch from the total walleye harvest.

[Guest WTF?]

17 years ago there were less ice fishing shacks and pressure. 17 years ago there were more moose and less deer. 17 years ago it might have made sense to extend the season. 17 years ago I had hair! Things change after 17 years. Maybe we should to. WTF?

[BASS ASSASSIN 22]

Stats or no stats, research or none at all, keeping rivers open or closing them up, bean eater or no beans at all????

Perhaps we could sum up with ecouraging better sportsmanship during the early open water season by chosing to go barbless, taking photos and measurements rather than taking a trophy home or challenging ourselves to fish areas without so much pressure.

I think that most of us still have the choices of where and how.

This might take some pressure of the why.

Cheers,

[tracker 61]

I guess I should clarify a few things to stay on topic. First thing to clarify, NOSA is not pushing to close the Savanne River as the title of this thread suggests. All NOSA is asking for is that the OMNR's Lac des Mille Lac fisheries data ( or lack of data) be presented to the Fisheries Management Zone 6 (FMZ6). LDML is a Specially Designated Water and has been excluded from FMZ 6 Fisheries Management Plan. The OMNR is in the process of possibly eliminating several Specially Designated Waters in Ontario.

The FMZ 6 council would than review and make decisions on what was presented to them. Any push for a sanctuary would have to come from them.They have done good work in the past within the Zone and we trust their decisions and directions.

Also, this is as much a perception issue as well as a possible over harvest issue within the Savanne River. There are many conservation minded anglers who are upset that anglers continually target these big hens in the early spring in the river and feel that this issue requires attention.

[Kaptain Kirk 34]

Agreed Tracker

[AB 98]

Tracker,

Thanks for helping clarify the situation a little.

As for your statement above about being a "whiner involved in getting the one month of winter season back", I don't think so...

Thanks for caring enough to do something about it. I've participated in a few co-operative angler studies, its a lot of sacrifice and hard work. Whiners hang around tackle shops and gripe, concerned anglers put up their own equipment and time to make things change for the better.

Perhaps if there is a need, you can help organize some new volunteers to take a look at the lake again...

iceman

[fishman1 164]

Ministers are politicians. Not biologists.

Roger

politicians have the last say in the laws, not biologists.

[Pro fisherman-Stud Muffin 420]

i heard mayor hobbs, wants to build a fishing event centre out there at public launch. going to create thousands of jobs, and rebound the walleye population. , govt funding is approved, they going to syhphon it out transit budget and call it new money!!!
just need to do 62 million feasibility study and have some 4th grader draw up some 2 million dollar conceptual art.

True story!!!

[Phil 26]

Lol

[fishman1 164]

i heard mayor hobbs, wants to build a fishing event centre out there at public launch. going to create thousands of jobs, and rebound the walleye population. , govt funding is approved, they going to syhphon it out transit budget and call it new money!!!

just need to do 62 million feasibility study and have some 4th grader draw up some 2 million dollar conceptual art.

True story!!!better do it before the apple dumpling gang closes the iPad river!

But the biologists have it all figured out!

[Wade O. 44]

I love these long discussions. I was intrigued when I read this because this has been an on going discussion for years. Many here have valid points. Mad scientist is correct when he stated that we first need to figure out if there is actually a problem with the " occasional" early season in the river, or should I clarify early open water season. I've been there in early April fishing, one of my biggest drives was that I had never fished for walleyes in open water before the season closed but I digress. While the river was busy i would say at the most there was maybe twenty boats there, to some you think TWENTY BOATS! Those of you who feel like this I dare you to count the shacks and trucks on the ice at the same time period when the ice is still in, I've counted hundreds. So is the problem the fishing in the river? I also like the discussion of people saying oh you fished there then you were pillaging the fish. Anyone who knows me knows that I am very conservation minded. When I went there I fished that lake once that year, i think I may have caught my four fish, i didn't keep any big ones. Then I have some yahoo talking down to me? The same yahoo who either spends all winter out there or all summer? How many fish have you taken?

To fully understand scientific data does take time, anyone who says its doesn't knows crap about numbers or scientific research. As we all know time is money. With all the cuts the government passes

out it always seems that there is less and less for the MNR. for research and enforcement. This brings me to a question....what happens to our licence fee money? We are always told the funds are diverted back into the resource, i'm sure some are but is it all accounted for? Is it also going to concerns that say in this case fisher men and women are concerned about or is some lobbist group getting funding for some research to benefit their goals?

One thing I am always leery about though is that numbers are just that numbers. Numbers can be interpreted by any group to show what they want them to show if you have the intelligence to make logical arguments using those numbers. Another problem a lot of people don't understand is that with any concern whether it be wildlife management, provincial budget cuts whatever, there is always lobbyists and common interest groups that will try to use......shall we say economical means to sway decisions. Applesauce lodge owner maybe doesn't want any part of reducing limits because it will drive his clientele away so he gets a coalition of campers together to lobby the minister to make changes. These shall we say back room politics as i believe someone has mentioned may actually dictate the outcome of the experiments before they are completed even.

The discussions of fish A population causing fish B population to fall off I think are absolute hogwash too. It reminds me of listening to my grandfather talk about how the pike kill all the walleye. This mentality is so old and outdated its not even funny, yes there are invasive species but many species of fish can live in the same environment and all thrive. Initially might there be a change....of course because you've altered the equilibrium the of the ecosystem and therefore it needs to work its way back to balance.

Honestly to me it makes no never mind anyhow, close the river longer....i'll move out in the lake if there is open water, i just want to fish. If they cut the limit to no fish, catch and release only....i'd still do it.

[mad scientist 140]

This brings me to a question....what happens to our licence fee money? We are always told the funds are diverted back into the resource, i'm sure some are but is it all accounted for?

Wade, here is the most recent report on what the government does with licence fees....

https://www.ontario.ca/document/fish-and-wildlife-special-purpose-account-annual-report-2010-2011

[Lyle Reiner 174]

Well said Wade!

[Fishbum 35]

Yup well said !!! On a second note if like to see we're all this license fee money actually goes to... And how much is being used effectivly .... Like maybe include a pre paid envelope with the moose and deer survey ... Maybe just maybe you'd get quite a few more feedback , we do pay upwards of $50 I think a 60 cent stamp would break the wallet

[fishman1 164]

Yes, and perhaps they could use a Canadian company for the moose draw, rather than a US based company.

[fisherdude 69]

That might be an idea!

[mad scientist 140]

Yes, and perhaps they could use a Canadian company for the moose draw, rather than a US based company.

You can thank NAFTA for that...the American company was the only one that bid on the contract.

[fishman1 164]

You can thank NAFTA for that...the American company was the only one that bid on the contract.

yes, I can still see Brian Mulroney with his arms around George bush, singing, when Irish eyes are shining.

The good old conservatives!

[salmonider 1]

Sounds like another black sturgeon situation waiting to happen

[Domer 103]

My two cents. This topic is a great read. I believe that closing the river can only improve the fishery. I don't understand why this lake is not being protected. I do believe if lac had lake trout in it they would close the river. For some reason they protect lakes with the lake trout in them but lakes like lac don't get that protection. I think that the common angler should have the ultimate say on if the sanctuary should be in place. Biologists don't spend enough time on the water to see the impact. Creol surveys don't cut it for me. I believe they should talk to the guys who spend a lot of time on that body of water. I have fished lac for over 30 years and have definitely seen the decline in the fishery. I fish all kinds of different areas at different times of the year. When I was younger in the years when the limit was 6, my family and friends would fish religiously at poplar point when ice fishing. Most Saturday's that we would fish would produce limits for all of us plus all fished released. Same as the late 90's when I was the first ice shack at coffin. Fishing was ridiculously amazing. Here's an example, six guys would go fish at coffin back in the late 90's, 4-6 fish would be on the ice as the lines were dropped down. Now, maybe an hour before you get ur first hit if ur lucky. Now numbers of fish in my experience has dropped. The size of the fish I believe has improved ever since the slot was implemented.

My biggest problem I see with the river is this. Myself being an avid fisherman and someone who loves to be on the water I see a lot of stupid shiiiit. I hate to point the finger but I am going to use a family member as an example. My family origin is Italian and I have no problem centering them out to prove a point. For some reason some European old timers are nothing but meat hunters. My old man moved to Canada when he was 10. When he got into fishing with his brothers they frequented lac all the time. The catches they talk about back in the 70's are epic. The rules were no inforced like they are now. It took one fine to change those three brothers. Ever since that day they follow the rules and that was before me getting into fishing so that was good for me as my dad always taught us to follow the rules. The one thing we had a hard time teaching the older fellas was to release the bigger fish. That goes back to the meat hunter belief. My dad and one of my uncles bought in but one didn't. Here is where I am leading up to.

Last year, like the previous year and maybe one to two others, the walleyes in lac were spawning or just spawned out during the opening day of fishing. We didn't fish savanne but where we fished it was loaded with 23-29" walleyes. It was fish after fish of prime female spawners. All 20+ boats had similar results. Most boats fishing savanne also had similar results. My uncle had five people on his boat. Because unders were tough to get he had 5 overs in the live well. Every time he would get a bigger one he would trade up. Now that is something that pisses me off. These are some of the things that ruin fisheries and rivers over time. And there is more of these people out there that capitalize on these situations. Those females take an absolute beating in the first two weeks. I believe that closing the river will keep lac as one of the best fisheries in the region.

This is the way I see it. If you have some money in your bank and you frequent the casino, over time your funds will eventually diminish. It's a sure thing. So is fishing in the rivers in lac. Shut them down and the fishery will get stronger, just like ur bank account, stay away from casinos and ur money will maintain or grow. Can't hurt.

I also noticed something this year. I thought that commercial fishing was closed on lac. 2 weeks in a row there was a net stretched out across sand point.

Domer