Some questions about rules/regs and catch/release

[Neal 1]

Hey, folks!

 

Other than a comment I just made, I haven't really posted on here. I'm more of a lurker. I'm new to the area, ish. I've been here three years. It's a far cry from where I used to live (the PNW) in terms of how great the fishing is and how great the area is. Y'all keep your secret lakes tight, which I respect, but even the popular lakes produce with effort. It's awesome.

 

I'm writing because there are some questions I just can't seem to find answers to, and I've read the rules and regs cover to cover multiple times trying to figure it out. If any of you all have insights, I'd be grateful.

 

1) I have been using minnows (ice) and lures (warmer months) for the most part, but that's mostly because I can't figure out what's allowed for bait otherwise. I didn't see any express prohibitions of some of the stuff we'd throw on the hook back where I used to live, but I didn't see any allowances for them, either.

 

Is it legal to use hot dogs, corn, bread, or atypical bait? I know about the rules for cut bait and chumming, those make total sense. But I can't find anything about throwing a chicken gizzard on a hook, for example.

 

It's also baffling what one can do with, for instance, attractants.I go into Wal-Mart and they have Walleye attractant right there on the shelf, and I know it's probably (literally) fish oil, but I couldn't figure out if it was even legal. The regs say anything plant-based, as I recall, but I couldn't suss what the ingredients were on the side of the bottle. My wife, being my wife, said "They couldn't sell it if it wasn't legal. Right?"

 

She should know better. We're both originally from the United States, where they sell PLENTY of stuff to you you're not actually supposed to have.

 

2) I read that lead sinkers aren't allowed in national parks. Does that extend to places like Hazelwood Lake? Would that mean that ice fishing there with a jig is illegal?

 

3) When I went out ice fishing, I bent over backwards out of paranoia to put a stick up through the holes I used. A lot of other ice fishers I saw didn't do this, they just left the hole and split. What is the reasonable social expectation there? Always put a stick? And what is the legal expectation? Enforcement or lack of enforcement aside, is it against the law NOT to mark a hole?

 

4) This is the big one that might get people riled, and I swear that's not my intention. It's a subjective question, I know, and I don't want to step on the feet of catch and release folks, at all. I am grateful for people protecting the supply.

 

I'm a catch and eat guy. I don't catch too many, maybe fifteen or so a season so far (if I start catching more, I'll won't harvest as much). That said, I have read up on how older and larger fish help keep the supply strong, and realize that there are fish out there that you always want to put back if you're being conscientious. Like, last summer I caught a 36.5 inch pike (I was as surprised by the truth of that as you are probably are assured of the lie of it), and I set it free to protect the supply.

 

HOWEVER, what I don't know is where that line starts, especially with each particular species. When I go online there are so many answers to that question, and they all seem to disagree. I know that perch, you could take a bunch, it won't harm anything. I know that with walleye, it's especially important not to keep larger fish.

 

The question I have, having grown up used to a sixteen-inch trout being a "big" fish for the local lakes, is what makes the line between "This fish is big, but harvesting it won't harm replenishment much." and "This fish needs to go back for your kid's sake."

 

My gut and a lot of what I've read online says about 24 inches for Pike, 22 inches for Walleye, and I have no clue for other fish. Does anyone know anything about the science there? What's your general policy?

 

Thanks, all.

 

 

 

 

 

[Zackcorbin1401 542]

You can/anyone here can allways message me with anything you would like to know! 

[naden 136]

It is true that a lot of people don’t like keeping larger fish. Most sport species have size restrictions and seasons to protect them during the spawn. I’m assuming the intent of the size restrictions is to protect the larger spawning fish. Therefore as long as you keep legal fish, in theory, the species is being managed in a way to ensure sustainable harvest. My personal opinion is that 16 inch walleyes taste better and have less contaminates so I tend not to keep larger fish. 
 

As far as marking holes in the ice, I wouldn’t bother unless the hole is large enough for someone to drown in. 
 

Without doing some research I’m not sure about the bait and attractants questions. 

[Neal 1]

Thanks, Zack! Kind of you.

 

And thanks, naden, that helps. I haven't caught many walleyes myself, but most of them are smaller when I do catch them.

 

The regs saying stuff like that it's okay to keep ONE pike daily that's bigger than 70cm or a Walleye at 46cm always makes me think that the sustainability line hovers somewhere near there. And that kind of tracks. The largest fish I tend to catch are once in a while, and in about that range.

 

That said, with, say, a 23 inch pike, that's such a huge fish (to me, I know, not locals) that I sit there and go "Is this okay?" And then other days I remember what a true monster pike is and go "That's just a normal average pike."

 

It's hard to say. I think that's because I have the benefit of having fished lakes that were pretty sparse and overfished, and these waters you could absolutely take TONS of fish if you worked at it.

 

That's part of the reason I want to work so hard not to make these waters like those waters, but also, if it doesn't hurt anything, why avoid fun and good eats, you know?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mad scientist 140]

18 hours ago, Neal said:

1) I have been using minnows (ice) and lures (warmer months) for the most part, but that's mostly because I can't figure out what's allowed for bait otherwise. I didn't see any express prohibitions of some of the stuff we'd throw on the hook back where I used to live, but I didn't see any allowances for them, either.

 

Is it legal to use hot dogs, corn, bread, or atypical bait? I know about the rules for cut bait and chumming, those make total sense. But I can't find anything about throwing a chicken gizzard on a hook, for example.

 

 

When you're trying to understand the bait restrictions, it's helpful to understand "why" MNRF restricts different kinds of bait in the first place.  The main reasons are:

- To prevent the introduction of species of fish into lakes where they don't already exist.  This applies both to invasive species as well as expanding the range of species that are native to Ontario but not "all" of Ontario.  We've lost a lot of brook trout lakes through inadvertent introductions from people dumping their bait buckets at the end of a trip

- To prevent people from using juvenile sport fish as bait

- To improve the post-release survival of fish and/or make it harder for anglers to catch them in the first place

- To provide niche fishing opportunities, e.g. artificial fly fishing only streams.

 

The province-wide prohibitions on bait mostly focus on live fish and live leeches.  New rules this year allow the movement of preserved (dead) fish and leeches, but they have to be preserved in a manner to prevent decomposition, other than refrigeration or freezing (e.g. salting).

 

Generally, if it's not something that's alive, and it's not a dead fish, you're pretty much allowed to use anything for bait, anywhere.  But there are some exceptions:

- if you're chumming, you have to use a plant-based bait.  So, for example, no maggots

- if you're fishing multiple lines for carp in southern Ontario (not allowed around here) you have to use plant based bait

- individual lakes make have regulatory exceptions that may say "no organic bait" or "artificial lures only", in which case hot dogs, chicken gizzards or corn would be prohibited

[mad scientist 140]

18 hours ago, Neal said:

2) I read that lead sinkers aren't allowed in national parks. Does that extend to places like Hazelwood Lake? Would that mean that ice fishing there with a jig is illegal?

 

 

In Canada, the term "National Parks" refers specifically to federally regulated parks...Pukaskwa is the only one in Northern Ontario.  The Lake Superior NMCA is managed by Parks Canada but is NOT a National Park, and doesn't have the same rules (at least, not yet).  Provincial Parks, Conservation Areas, Municipal Parks, etc., are not covered by the Parks Canada rules.

 

Actually, the regulation states that you can't use a lead sinker or jig that weighs less than 50g...the reason for this rule is to keep waterfowl from eating lead as gizzard stones.

 

Parks Canada has an entirely separate set of fishing regulations from the Ontario Fishery Regulations.  They can be viewed here:

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1120/index.html

[mad scientist 140]

18 hours ago, Neal said:

My gut and a lot of what I've read online says about 24 inches for Pike, 22 inches for Walleye, and I have no clue for other fish. Does anyone know anything about the science there? What's your general policy?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Size limit regulations are one of the most common rules that MNRF uses to manage fish populations.  The typical (but not exclusive) reason for a maximum size limit or a "one over" limit is to protect the larger fish that make up the spawning population...biologists often use the slang term BOFFFF: "Big Old Fat Fecund Female Fish" (the word 'fecund' refers to the fact that bigger, older fish produce more and bigger eggs).

 

The size limits that are put in place are a reasonable guideline for a size cutoff for what to keep and what to release, but remember that they're generalities that are applied across the province.  The spawning size on one lake might not be the same as on another.

 

It's also important to look at the Guide to Eating Ontario Fish when you're considering what size of fish to harvest.  Larger fish do accumulate more toxins than smaller fish, but again, different lakes and watersheds have different levels of mercury etc.  The Guide shows you what sizes of fish are safest to eat for different species in numerous lakes.  https://www.ontario.ca/page/guide-eating-ontario-fish

[Neal 1]

Mad scientist, that's all gold, thank you so much for the time and information. Helped a LOT.

 

I was aware of the eating guide, thankfully, mostly because I got into the habit of trying to see how much mercury was in stuff back in the states. It's a hell of a resource, and one I'm grateful for.

 

And good to know about the bait. I don't plan on tossing hot dogs on too much, or anything else weird, but when the bite goes dead and nothing is working, I have wondered if taking a bit of my lunch and sticking it on there was legal, and now I know. Cool.

 

The Parks Canada regulations weren't something I'd read yet, and that'll be helpful for when I'm travelling as I expand my search for that perfect lake. Thank you.

 

What you mentioned about the spawning size differing from lake to lake is one of the reason I asked. Not being a biologist, I only have my assumptions. My gut tells me that if the fish are small in a lake, leave the big ones, and if there are a lot of fish, less so. Not that I get many big fish anyway, but those few times I've caught some decent sized ones, I always fret. That's probably better than being cavalier.

 

This was really awesome of you, my thanks.

[mad scientist 140]

6 hours ago, Neal said:

What you mentioned about the spawning size differing from lake to lake is one of the reason I asked. Not being a biologist, I only have my assumptions. My gut tells me that if the fish are small in a lake, leave the big ones, and if there are a lot of fish, less so.

 

LOL, you're starting to dig into questions that require more than a couple of paragraphs to answer.  Again, these points are just generalities:

 

- A "healthy" population of most species of sport fish has a fairly predictable age distribution.  So using walleye for an example, in a healthy population we're going to see every age of fish in the lake from age 1 up to about age 15; after age 15 there might be some years missing, but we'd also expect to see some fish showing up, up to their early 20s.  

- Also in a "healthy" population of walleye, males start to become sexually mature around 4 or 5 years old, and females at 5 or 6

- If we find a population of fish where most of the fish are small, and they're becoming sexually mature at a smaller size and a younger age, that can be a sign that the population is being overharvested...we see fewer age classes and especially fewer of those BOFFFFs.

-If we find a population where there are still old fish in the population, but the number of juvenile fish is much lower than expected, that's a different problem.  The strength of individual year classes can vary a great deal, usually due to the weather.  But if there are low numbers of juveniles year after year, that could mean that there's a habitat problem, or that some new species has been introduced to the lake that is feeding on the juvenile fish.

-If we find that the population has good age distribution, but the fish are smaller than expected at any given age, it might be a forage problem...something has happened to the prey species that the fish rely upon.  Or it might be that the lake just wasn't a good walleye (or whatever species) in the first place.  Each species of fish has certain habitat requirements, and some are more stringent than others.  So for example, walleye prefer murky lakes...they can survive in lakes that are less murky, but the population will never be as good in a dark lake.

 

Bottom line is, there really isn't a "magic number" for any species of fish, but if you follow the size limits in the regulations and the consumption advice in the Guide to Eating Ontario Fish, you should be on the right track.

[mad scientist 140]

10 hours ago, mad scientist said:

 

Generally, if it's not something that's alive, and it's not a dead fish, you're pretty much allowed to use anything for bait, anywhere.  But there are some exceptions:

- if you're chumming, you have to use a plant-based bait.  So, for example, no maggots

- if you're fishing multiple lines for carp in southern Ontario (not allowed around here) you have to use plant based bait

- individual lakes make have regulatory exceptions that may say "no organic bait" or "artificial lures only", in which case hot dogs, chicken gizzards or corn would be prohibited

I should have also noted that it's illegal to move crayfish over land in Ontario, whether alive or dead

[Neal 1]

Generalities are great... they help me start down that path of researching more, and point in the right direction. But that said, you offered a TON of specifics, which really help. It also makes sense that my gut would be way off, and I'm glad to be wrong, because it helps me figure out what's right. Quite cool.

 

So what I'm gathering here is that, despite my wishing and wanting for more stable sand to stand on in terms of wrong and right here, the biodiversity of a lake is sufficiently complex that it won't be a hard and fast rule I can follow, so much as a general "follow the rules" that the biologists (presumably) and folks who study this for a living say are safe.

 

It's honestly frustrating, because I would really love to tailor my usage to whatever is best for the given lake, but on the plus side, now I have a place to start looking into stuff. Many thanks.

 

 

[Neal 1]

Noted on crayfish, as well. Thanks.

[Shawn 24]

You will never please everyone the same guy mad at you for keeping a fish an inch over what he feels acceptable that day is probably the same guy who fishes and catches a limit 4 times a week all year when you may only get out four times a year a nice fish caught locally tastes the same as one you buy for $25 a fillet in grocery store 

[grs 11]

21 hours ago, Shawn said:

You will never please everyone the same guy mad at you for keeping a fish an inch over what he feels acceptable that day is probably the same guy who fishes and catches a limit 4 times a week all year when you may only get out four times a year a nice fish caught locally tastes the same as one you buy for $25 a fillet in grocery store 

Honestly surprised at this response.

 

With your cavalier attitude towards breaking the law when it comes to crown land camping I was expecting a response stating something like, "it's ok to keep one or two more than your limit once in a while".

 

[Shawn 24]

Grs you know what they say about assuming for one not everyone has limits of times they can camp out for or even limits on fish or species they can keep you best just rest your Twinkie brain leave the thinking to the big boys

[Neal 1]

Didn't see the first response until you quoted, had Shawn on ignore for that same reason you mentioned, the response to the crown camping thing made me put him on ignore without a second thought.

 

Given what got quoted, there, yeah, yikes. Dude seems to have either a persecution complex or some kind of desire to quarrel.

 

I don't.

 

I'm not so cynical about the hypocrisy of others as he seems to be. I believe most people are good and try to follow the rules.

 

It's a mistake to assume because we see one bad example of someone breaking rules, everyone is, and it's often projection far more than a reflection of reality, as far as I'm concerned. Most people are good, until they start believing everyone is bad. Then they lower themselves to the levels they see.

 

I'd just hover over the name, click ignore, and save yourself the headache of trying to reason with the unreasonable.

[grs 11]

8 hours ago, Neal said:

Didn't see the first response until you quoted, had Shawn on ignore for that same reason you mentioned, the response to the crown camping thing made me put him on ignore without a second thought.

 

Given what got quoted, there, yeah, yikes. Dude seems to have either a persecution complex or some kind of desire to quarrel.

 

I don't.

 

I'm not so cynical about the hypocrisy of others as he seems to be. I believe most people are good and try to follow the rules.

 

It's a mistake to assume because we see one bad example of someone breaking rules, everyone is, and it's often projection far more than a reflection of reality, as far as I'm concerned. Most people are good, until they start believing everyone is bad. Then they lower themselves to the levels they see.

 

I'd just hover over the name, click ignore, and save yourself the headache of trying to reason with the unreasonable.

Didn't see the ignore option.  Done.

 

Sorry to muck up your post.

[Neal 1]

Nah, better to call people out when they're looking for a fight.

 

Not that they listen, generally.

 

I'm sorry the post made you deal with that guy.