proposed bass changes

[fishman1 164]

several people have voiced concern over the proposed changes to the bass fishery in zone 6. the changes are longer season and more liberal catch limits that will create increased angling opportunity. why would the tackle retailers and marine dealers jump on the bandwagon to stop increased angling opportunities? this will only be good for their business. and when was the last time you stopped for shore lunch and ate BASS or watched a tv show where they ate bass? this is walleye country. they could increase the bass limit to 20 and it wouldnt make one bit of difference as nobody keeps those THINGS anyways.

[GC 54 31]

several people have voiced concern over the proposed changes to the bass fishery in zone 6. the changes are longer season and more liberal catch limits that will create increased angling opportunity. why would the tackle retailers and marine dealers jump on the bandwagon to stop increased angling opportunities? this will only be good for their business. and when was the last time you stopped for shore lunch and ate BASS or watched a tv show where they ate bass? this is walleye country. they could increase the bass limit to 20 and it wouldnt make one bit of difference as nobody keeps those THINGS anyways.

My post was strickly due to the concern on Shebandowan, not the lakes like Lac and Whitefish where they are really an invasive species. The reason I suggested that the tackle retailers and marine dealers should attend is for the simple fact that if the bass fishing on Shebandowan dwindles due to the proposed changes, and as a tournament participant in the two annual bass tournaments held on Shebandowan, as well as a recreational fisherman that targets bass, I believe that eventually the lives of the two tournaments may come to an end. Bass tournaments on lakes in NWO, namely on Shebandowan, generates huge dollars for tackle retailers, marine dealers and gas stations. Bass fishing is not like steelheading, once you have your main steelhead gear, really what else do you need unless you want to upgrade. A bunch of guys load up in one vehicle and off they go to the river. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy steelheading as well. In fact, I was and still am on the executive of the NSSA and was one of the proponents of the steelhead regulations. Steelhead regulations were put in to protect the fishery. Different steelhead regulations for different rivers. Why cannot this be the same for bass for different lakes. Right now a person angling for bass can take two bass, and throw out a bare shiney hook to a spawning bass and you have a fight on your hands. Now the proposal is to allow for the taking of six of the big spawners??? As for the typical bass fisherman, the endless supply of bass tackle loaded up in the boat that uses lots of gas comes from the tackle retailers and marine dealers and gas stations. Thus, I feel that they should attend while these proposals are still only proposals. Again, I am speaking about the regulations for a bass lake like Shebandowan where walleyes were introduced long after the bass were already established in the lake.

As for nobody keeps those THINGS anyways, Darcy let me know when you want to experience great day of fishing those THINGS. I will be sure you have the proper bass gear and we can fish from my boat. I will even let you keep a couple of those THINGS so you can take them home to enjoy. You won't need your waders or your float fishing gear. And leave the roe bags at home.

[Bear 77]

Although I dont live in Thunder Bay, I do participate in both of the fine tournaments on Shebandowan. Firstly, if people think that bass are "taking over" the lake, what do they base this on? Perhaps the MNR needs to do a study on what is happening in that lake. From all I have read about bass and the studies that have been done on Lake of the Woods (home for me now) smallmouth bass usually (a very high percentage) return to their homes eventually after being caught and brought to the scales and released. A small percentage remain in the area where they were released.

For someone to say that all the bass that are released in Lower Shebandowan are staying there may be misleading. Perhaps the people fishing for walleyes are taking all the spawner walleyes out of the spots they have fished for years and there are not as many as before. I am no expert, I just fish.

I totally agree with George (happy birthday boy) that every fishery could be different and if so, the rules and regulations should apply as such. They are there to protect the fishery. That is why the MNR is asking for input and what better people to ask than the guys who target the species and run these tournaments. They will come to the table with their concerns and facts about how many fish were caught, where they were released, etc., which will help in final decision making. It is important that the "on the water experts" make an appearance and give valueable input.

There is always a spinoff of $$$ for the community that holds the tournament. Boat dealers, repair guys (like myself), hotels, restaurants, tackle store and suppliers (like me) along with other businesses (when anglers bring their families along) profit from tournaments. I always buy more tackle on my trips to tournaments. I spent a late Friday evening before the SSS looking for baits and found what I was looking for at the little tackle store on James St. I dropped at least $50.00. Businesses should be a big part of what is going on with these fisheries. There is always dollars involved in tournaments and fishing in general, other than entries and prize money. For example, I am trying to find a camp to rent right now for a week before the SSS so I can bring my family, figure out the costs as compared to what I can win and do the math.

As far as I am concerned keeping bass that are spawning or are on the beds doing guard duty is just wrong. Let them spawn, recover and then lets fish them. Bass on beds are easy to catch as George stated, just throw something to them, anything at all and you could catch the same fish 20 times.

Work with the MNR to protect the fishery and emphasize that each fishery is different. Be a part of the solution, not part of the problem and get the facts on the table, while these changes are still proposals. Once they are enacted, good luck in changing them back, remember the spring bear hunt and the spin off from that mess.

Not only that bass are great table fare. I would risk to say that I could throw a few into one of my famous, delicious shore lunches, along with some walleye, pike and perch, and you would never know the difference. A few fried potatoes, some corn bread, onion rings and some beans, they are as good as any.

Bear

[Trevor Zimak 171]

"Longer season" Is the season for bass not already open year round in zone 6? "Better angling oppertunities". By allowing anglers to legally keep 6 bass during peak spawning periods would over time, drastically reduce bass populations. I am not sure how this would be beneficial for better angling in the future.

As for what was mention by George and Bear, +10 here. I can't think of anything of any value to add. You guys have hit the nail on the head on this one.

You can count on seeing me at the meeting.

[fishman1 164]

i too fish bass on shebandowan lake. they provide a great fishery and are fun to catch. the bass population has flourished for years, even when the season was open longer and the catch limits were more liberal. you rarely see fisherman coming off the lake now with the 2 fish limit and i find it highly unlikely that if the limit is 6 fish, you will see fisherman leaving the lake with their stringers full. i think the bass fishery will survive on shebandowan as it has in the past.

[Castnblast 86]

Guys the proposed change for Z6 is (4) fish - not 6

[Trevor Zimak 171]

There were three proposals.... open season and 6 fish was one of them, plus two others.

[Castnblast 86]

sorry ... of the 3 proposed changes the "recommended" reg change is 4 without size restriction.

[Guest Nick C]

Thanks for clearing that up! I was curious about that myself!

Nick C

[Thefishleclair 175]

I love bass!!! I fish a Lake that had Walleye,Lake Trout and Pike. Now its loaded with bass....As a Matter of fact I gave up on walleye fishing and hit the bass hard, I kept my 4 and ate them fer lunch and dinner and fed them to the other campers that were in the lodge. I have thought about the increase in Bass in the lake and the decrease of the walleye. I dont know if the 2 are hand in hand but for now they will hit my BBQ in chunks wrapped with bacon and smotherd with BBQ Sauce and baked until crispy and delicious

[Some Old Guy 968]

Invasive species? Please tell me what isn't invasive now. What it comes down to is balance. We all have our favourite fish to catch. But could one specie over power and force the other to become non existant in a body of water? It depends on the body of water.

Limited spawning shoals which walleye and bass must share, the bass will win. If there's areas where both can spread out and use with minimal interfearance from each other, it should balance.

The MNR is trying to create angling oportunities. People have actually hung their rods up and stopped fishing when limits went down. Just like thousands of hunters have packed it in. Maybe to generate interest seasons and limits must be looked at.

As was mentioned this has to be done very carefully as one lake might be able to handle the extra harvest but the next lake may not! Blanket regs are tough to make every lake balance out in the end.

Roger

[Guest Munshaw]

Shebandowan is but one of several...hundred (thousand?)... lakes in Zone 6. To base your entire opinion on how it would affect a single lake seems a little short sighted imho.

I have caught WAY more bass on Lac for example than ever before, having had a camp there for about 20 years now. I feel very strongly they are pushing the walleye out of certain areas. The walleye fishing on Lac for example has way WAY more economic impact than the SSS I would guess.

That being said I don't think I'd keep any at all anyway, be it 2 or 6.

[Trevor Zimak 171]

Invasive species? Please tell me what isn't invasive now. What it comes down to is balance. We all have our favourite fish to catch. But could one specie over power and force the other to become non existant in a body of water? It depends on the body of water.

Limited spawning shoals which walleye and bass must share, the bass will win. If there's areas where both can spread out and use with minimal interfearance from each other, it should balance.

The MNR is trying to create angling oportunities. People have actually hung their rods up and stopped fishing when limits went down. Just like thousands of hunters have packed it in. Maybe to generate interest seasons and limits must be looked at.

As was mentioned this has to be done very carefully as one lake might be able to handle the extra harvest but the next lake may not! Blanket regs are tough to make every lake balance out in the end.

Roger

Rog, you are correct however,

If we are taking about spawning, I am somewhat skeptical of the idea that bass spawn simultaneouly with walleye. Bass and walleye may utilize that same spawning areas, but bass will not spawn until the water has reached 60 degrees. This usually does not occur until sometime in June. With that being said, it still takes several weeks for the spawn to happen. Walleye spawn in early May to mid May, while bass area usually still out on humps or deep water shoals at this time. The only arguement that I can make against bass here is that the bass may be coming in to feed on walleye fry before they spawn.

[fishman1 164]

thank you roger and munshaw for the great replys. happy birthday george and thanks for the fishing invitation. however i will not require your fishing gear as i already have plenty of bass tackle that i have aquired over the past 20 years . oh, and by the way, i will leave my float rod, waders and roe behind. i believe that in these times of closures, reduced limits, shortened seasons,etc, these proposals should be looked at in a positive way. whether it be the pike lake trout or bass. these proposals are there to increase angling opportunities, something that has been taken away from fisherman and caused so many fellow fisherman to stop fishing and therefore affecting the tackle shops, marine dealers, and many others in this industry. any time that we can get back opportunities that have been taken away it is a step in the right direction, as this is hard to reverse. it is very hard to please everyone, whether it be business, fishing etc. and as munshaw has stated, the money generated from the sss is small potatoes as to the money that has been lost due to negative fisheries policies. the increase in bass limits from 2 to 4 will not affect the sss nor the marine dealers, or the tackle shops of thunder bay or the bass fishery of shebandowan lake. i also believe that previous threads contradicting this should be looked at as being selfish and self centered. shame on you all.

[sinker7 114]

What concerns me most about the proposed regulation changes for bass is the attitude shift the MNR now has. Smallmouth Bass went from gamefish to invasive species in our area. They are placing them in the same category as rusty crayfish, smelts, spiny water flea, ruffe and lamprey. The idea of having a year round season with no size limits is to encourage the harvest of spawning adult fish. Remove adult fish from the lake in the spring and the nests will perish possibly reducing the population of bass. That is the advantages the MNR has sited for the proposed regulations. There are year round angling opportunities already for bass this becomes an increased harvest opportunity.

"Invasive species" - I would prefer to call them "introduced species" much like the salmon, steelhead, splake, walleye and specks that have been stocked in many of the area lakes. Many of the trophy walleye lakes in the area - Oliver, Dog, Sandstone, Arrow, Nelson, Weikwabinaw just to mention a few - have had thriving bass populations in them for decades with no obvious effect on the walleye population. Even trout waters such as Mountain Lake which never had bass in it before now supports a strong bass population along with a great lake trout fishery. Why the sudden concern that bass are now a threat? Bass were first introduced into this area back in the 1940's and have been expanding there range ever since. As pointed out earlier by George there is concern about the growing bass populations in Whitefish and Lac. Most of us can remember a time not too long ago when bass were unheard of in these lakes. I am sure we have all heard the same stories "the bass are going to take over the lake". Both of these lakes receive tremendous fishing pressure year round from both resident and non-resident anglers and continues to produce tonnes of walleye. Bass have been in Lac now for more than fifteen years and catches are becoming more and more common. Friends of ours own a resort on the lake and now have guests that spend part of there time targeting only bass, both catch and release and catch and keep. They have caught some bass pushing four pounds. This new fishery takes some pressure off the adult walleye population. Will bass negatively affect the walleye population on these two lakes? Time will tell, but looking at the other lakes previously mentioned bass and walleye seem to co-exist just fine. They do not compete for spawning grounds, they spawn at different times in the spring and there primary forage differs considerably. Case in point, years back Rainy Lake's walleye population was devastated by commercial and recreational fishing. Through strict regulations the walleye population has rebounded dramatically. This walleye population rebound occured in the shadows of a huge bass population that exists on the lake.

Both Lac and Whitefish have reputations for producing huge fish, given the chance, the fertile waters of Whitefish and sprawling waters of Lac can produce some mega-bass.

Does the MNR in the Fisheries Management Zones to the west of us have the same attitude towards bass? Kenora, Fort Frances and Atikokan rely on tourism, tournaments and related spin-offs as income related to bass fishing. In these areas bass are much more valuable alive than dead. Will it take more tournaments in our area, more money spent on bass fishing in Zone 6 to give back the smallmouth bass the title of "gamefish"???

[GC 54 31]

Well said Sinker, you fine tuned what I was trying to say.

Some of us can fish, some of us can write, you are good at both!

[tracker 61]

Gentlemen: The proposed changes are not MNR driven. Some of these recomendations came from the species tool kits that were put together a few years ago when the MNR asked the general public for input when they were starting to simplify the fishing regulations. Did you participate at that time and voice your concerns?

These are changes that were recommended by the FMZ 6 advisory council that is primarily made up of tax payers of Ontario. The majority are stake holders in the fishing community as well as First Nations people. The MNR biologists, management and enforcement staff are acting as consultants.

[Some Old Guy 968]

I just wanted to point out what I have seen first hand.

First CORRECT walleye and bass do not compete for spawning areas. Walleye will spawn first. Then the bass will nest on these exact same shore line shoals. They don't compete for the area at the same time. Nest building by bass, which I am very positive, dislodges many of the fertilized walleye eggs. Next the Bass will guard their nests while the walleye hatch and become fry. These fry have no rearing grounds and must rely on the shallow water on these small shoreline shoals. Since we all know bass fiercely guard their nests and will attack anything, as was mentioned, many of these walleye fry do not have a chance. I have even witnessed baby pike eaten at this time.

Now before I get lambasted, I have only witnessed this on one lake that is deep and bowl shaped where bass and walleye must use the same shoals to spawn. That being said there is an order to fix a culvert to help eliminate this problem.

I highly respect both bass and walleye. Here is something that I have had on this site for awhile but have never really linked it up.

History of the Distribution of Small Mouth Bass in North Western Ontario.

You can see how far the bass have spread out. Amazing!

I would also like to point out another thought of mine. Since smallmouth fry dominate the surface of many waters during the fire season in N.W. Ontario, do think it's possible that water bombers might enhance the "stocking" of smallies in remote creeks and ponds that affect other watersheds? Just a thought.

Roger

[Bottom Bouncer 22]

Gentlemen: The proposed changes are not MNR driven. Some of these recomendations came from the species tool kits that were put together a few years ago when the MNR asked the general public for input when they were starting to simplify the fishing regulations. Did you participate at that time and voice your concerns?

These are changes that were recommended by the FMZ 6 advisory council that is primarily made up of tax payers of Ontario. The majority are stake holders in the fishing community as well as First Nations people. The MNR biologists, management and enforcement staff are acting as consultants.

Tacker if the news of this up and coming meeting about the fish regulations in FMZ6 on Feb. 5/09 from 7-9 at the Victoria Inn were not posted by myself on this site how many anglers would have not knowin at all ? Would we have heard about it on the Radio,TBT news, the local Paper etc... (I Think Not) The MNR has a "Nasty Habit" of "not" informing the public properly of these meetings. In my opinion if the MNR isn't going to inform us properly then NOSA should pay for air time on the "Radio Stations" and a big add in the Paper to get the word out each and every time there is public consultations of this importance. This is a pretty big meeting, because it won't be long before this goes to print and this won't be discussed for another five years. So Gentlemen don't feel bad if you missed the meeting that Tracker is refering to, because the notice of the meeting was probrably printed in the second last page of the paper on a one inch square between the funnys and the movies. In all reallity they don't want us there.

[Some Old Guy 968]

Thank God Tracker posts this stuff and helps us be aware of it and that goes for others who find out information and posts it here and on other websites. Because I rarely see public info meetings. If I do it's about a section for forestery management.

Roger

[Some Old Guy 968]

And thanks to you too, NISSWA! I don't know where else I would have seen this.

Roger

[GC 54 31]

Hold on Larry, there has been public notice in the paper as well as newspaper articles about proposed changes. A couple of weeks ago the MNR 'group' were kind enough to meet with the executive of the NSSA and explain the proposals.

The council that colaborated to come up with the recommendations was made up of representatives of many user groups. In support of the efforts of the MNR, the public is still invited to attend the area meetings, visit the web site that relates to the proposed changes, and also to submit your comments/concerns.

[Some Old Guy 968]

Do you have the link?

Roger

[GC 54 31]

Sorry I do not have the written articles printed, but Gord Ellis also had an article on it as well in his column.

http://www.environet.lrc.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB...amp;language=en

http://fj530e4.korkoladesign.com/documents...s_Jan_19_09.pdf

[Bottom Bouncer 22]

Well George, I for one don't get the paper, so any notices in the paper aren't worth the paper they're printed on for me. Also, as you printed earlier the "EXECUTIVEs" of specialized groups are informed. Well, then maybe they should be contacting their membership and having meetings of there own to bring forth proposals. What I'm getting at is the average angler and some of us hardcore anglers don't feel the MNR are getting the message out. Heck, Roger didn't even know and he works at D+R and is as hard-core as they get. Remember George, you are very well known and very involved in the Angling community and "In the LOOP," so to speak. I do know of one well respected individual in the community who did want to sit in on some of these meetings and was denied. I, for one, was involved and spent a large number of hours on the phone with biologists in the area and some in the Fort and Kenora areas over the Lake Trout regulations. I was promised all kinds of feedback and promised invitations to meetings and got none.