What does everyone think about the catch limits on Lake Ontario and the tributaries feeding Lake Ontario for steelhead and brown trout? I have personally seen a huge decline in steelhead in the local tribs like Bronte Creek over the past 10 years. I remember when the fishing was great on Bronte and other local tribs. Now, everyone struggles to catch fish spring and fall. The OMNR is still stocking a good amount of fish (for the most part) into the tributaries, but the fish are just not showing much of a return anymore. The angling pressure on the tributaries and lake has grown tremendously, and the amount of fish has declined tremendously.
There is currently a 5 fish limit for steelhead and brown trout. I think with the huge decline in steelhead and browns, there should be a revised approach to conservation. What do you all think about a revised catch limit for steelhead and brown trout on Lake Ontario and its tributaries to try and improve the fishing?
Aaron Shirley
Declining Steelhead - Ontario
-
Aaron Shirley
- Participant
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 2:41 pm
- Location: Burlington, Ontario
- Contact:
-
Markus
- Diamond Participant
- Posts: 7362
- Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 8:05 am
- Location: Nova Scotia/St Catharines
There's a lot of eating on 1 fish. I'd like to see the limit reduced to one. C&R is all good, but keeping a fish for the table is also part of an angling experience for a lot of folks.
Last edited by Markus on Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Steelhead
Just push the Americans to stock more fingerling fish.
The vast majority of fish are from there stocking efforts and the way they are polluting rivers like the Black the fish are going to start spending more time on this side of the lake anyway.
Canada's stocking efforts are .... well they need help.
Not too many fish are going to survive live release being pulled from the depths of the big lake.
The vast majority of fish are from there stocking efforts and the way they are polluting rivers like the Black the fish are going to start spending more time on this side of the lake anyway.
Canada's stocking efforts are .... well they need help.
Not too many fish are going to survive live release being pulled from the depths of the big lake.
-
Markus
- Diamond Participant
- Posts: 7362
- Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 8:05 am
- Location: Nova Scotia/St Catharines
Seaweed, ya think Steelco, Nanticoke and Defasco have nothing to do with polluting the great lakes?
Stocking isn't the answer either. The Rainbows are reproducing and it would be a much more economical approach to rebuilding populations to control fish stocks through catch and release than it would be to dump more fingerlings in.
Look what tighter controlled catch and release guidelines have done for the muskie.
Stocking isn't the answer either. The Rainbows are reproducing and it would be a much more economical approach to rebuilding populations to control fish stocks through catch and release than it would be to dump more fingerlings in.
Look what tighter controlled catch and release guidelines have done for the muskie.
Poll
An extremely complex issue thats been raised. Its very difficult to compare fish species when comparing results of possession limit increases or decreases. Muskies for example have a reasonably respectable survival rate on release. One of the reasons sighted for this was the shallow depths at which they are caught. Also the caliber of people doing the catching. If anyone thinks that they are releasing a fish(salmon, Eye or rainbow) successfully, thats been brought up from 60 ft down, your just trying to make yourself feel good. Oh they swim away away alright but a lot belly up within 30 minutes. I have a boat moored at Port Credit and spend a fair bit of time on the water during the derbies.There were many days when we scooped up"released fish"with anet, nice healthy little 8 to 10 lb salmon and rainbows , not big enough for an entry so they were put back, too much of a shock to their system.
Conditions under which they are caught play a huge roll in the survival rates.
When I was out in Abostford BC two years ago I was introduced to an interesting system, you bought a licence and it had a quota attached, you were only allowed so many fish (Steelhead), I cant recall the exact number but I think it was four on that stretch of the Fraser. When you caught a fish you punched the circle on the licence, catch and release or keep didnt matter, the logic as it was explained to me was that you could only fight a certain number of fish. They were trying to prevent the 30 plus fish being caught, even if 29 were released.
There are some very good articles written on this subject in Musky magazine, worth reading , several long term studies in Wisconsin demonstrated that 30 % of the fish released, died. Now keep in mind these fish were handled by knowledgeable people who were not taking photos, and they still died.
Alot has yet to be learned or rather proven on the issue of cormmorant and declining bait fish in the Great Lakes. lets not be too quick to lay the cause at the feet of the average fisherman for rapid and suggnificant declines in the salmonoids on the GL
Just another point of view.
Conditions under which they are caught play a huge roll in the survival rates.
When I was out in Abostford BC two years ago I was introduced to an interesting system, you bought a licence and it had a quota attached, you were only allowed so many fish (Steelhead), I cant recall the exact number but I think it was four on that stretch of the Fraser. When you caught a fish you punched the circle on the licence, catch and release or keep didnt matter, the logic as it was explained to me was that you could only fight a certain number of fish. They were trying to prevent the 30 plus fish being caught, even if 29 were released.
There are some very good articles written on this subject in Musky magazine, worth reading , several long term studies in Wisconsin demonstrated that 30 % of the fish released, died. Now keep in mind these fish were handled by knowledgeable people who were not taking photos, and they still died.
Alot has yet to be learned or rather proven on the issue of cormmorant and declining bait fish in the Great Lakes. lets not be too quick to lay the cause at the feet of the average fisherman for rapid and suggnificant declines in the salmonoids on the GL
Just another point of view.
-
Markus
- Diamond Participant
- Posts: 7362
- Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 8:05 am
- Location: Nova Scotia/St Catharines
Rigger, perhaps a date for a limit change....for when the bows move shallow. You're bang on about poor survival rates of fish caught in deep water, but I would bet the survival rate for those fish released in the tribs and along the shoreline are much much higher.
And you bring up a great point about other major factors contributing to lower numbers.
Personally I had a banner year on Erie out on the big water. Lots of bows. Where are they now? If I was to guess, I'd guess they were back in the US tribs on the south shore where they where pen raced and released.
And you bring up a great point about other major factors contributing to lower numbers.
Personally I had a banner year on Erie out on the big water. Lots of bows. Where are they now? If I was to guess, I'd guess they were back in the US tribs on the south shore where they where pen raced and released.
With all other species, they are protected while they make their run to spawn and reproduce.
With trout, they are left completely vulnerable, beds trampled and invaded, lures in their face all day long.
I say, during the spawning runs the limit should be ZERO. Maybe not necessarily a closed season, but at least proper catch & release. One fish a day is still too much on many of the tributaries they are running!
Destruction of spawning habitat by new sub-divisions, etc is also a major impact on the fishery.
With trout, they are left completely vulnerable, beds trampled and invaded, lures in their face all day long.
I say, during the spawning runs the limit should be ZERO. Maybe not necessarily a closed season, but at least proper catch & release. One fish a day is still too much on many of the tributaries they are running!
Destruction of spawning habitat by new sub-divisions, etc is also a major impact on the fishery.
Poll
Markus , An Interesting concept. When the fish move shallow to spawn or to set up , knock the limit back to one fish or no fish in the rivers I think that would fly. You would still have the ability to take a certain number of fish ealier in the season and then back right off on the spawners.
, I personally think that we need more sanctuary areas designated, when these fish in in the shallow rivers, hard to spawn when somebodies dragging a mepps 4 accross your nose all day. And everyone knows those big black hens are''nt being kept to eat.
I guess the rule is still self governance, at this point
, I personally think that we need more sanctuary areas designated, when these fish in in the shallow rivers, hard to spawn when somebodies dragging a mepps 4 accross your nose all day. And everyone knows those big black hens are''nt being kept to eat.
I guess the rule is still self governance, at this point
-
fishforfun
- Gold Participant
- Posts: 1408
- Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 2:45 pm
- Location: Georgetown Ont.
What about center pin reels only in the tribs after the last Sat in Sept. employing only a single hook! Float or Fly no handlines spinning gear or treble hooks. As for the big lake a 1 or 2 fish limit would be acceptable, but when down rigging keep what you catch would be a good recomendation from the MNR, but we need to keep in mind charters and derbies.
-
Aaron Shirley
- Participant
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 2:41 pm
- Location: Burlington, Ontario
- Contact:
I would like to thank all of you for offering your feedback. I knew that this issue would be controversial and may get a heated discussion, but I believe that the issue is very important and should be discussed. I do not intend to place blame on any party, as I do not feel it is anyone’s fault. I believe that the observations of the people who fish the Lake Ontario tributaries on a regular basis should be taken into consideration for some type of conservation process. I hope that anglers and government can come together to help resolve what I believe is a highly important issue.
The decline of steelhead and brown trout on the tributaries of Lake Ontario has been a concern of mine (and many other tributary anglers) for several years. I have been fishing Lake Ontario tributaries steady for over 25 years now, and I have never seen the return of steelhead and brown trout as poor as it has been in the last couple of years. I have sadly watched the decline happen over the years, as have most Lake Ontario tributary anglers I have spoken to. It is a fact that the return of steelhead and brown trout numbers have steadily declined over the past 10 years in the tributaries of Lake Ontario.
I am not saying that reducing the daily catch limit will solve all the issues relating to this topic. I know that there are many other factors contributing to the major decline and much more needs to be done to help. For instance, the water levels in the tributaries have significantly reduced over time, more and more sub divisions are being built close to the rivers, and some tributaries have silted up considerably and the flow disrupted from ideal conditions due to beaver dams. The baitfish in Lake Ontario has also declined over the years, resulting in less stocking.
I do not believe that all steelhead and brown trout that are released in the open waters of Lake Ontario die with post-release-mortality from being brought up from deep water. I know that some of the fish do die in the summer heat being brought up from deep water; however, I believe that most live if handled and released properly. Spiny dorsal finned fish like walleye, perch and bass will die being brought up from deep water, as their air bladder will normally expand too much and pop out of their throats. Unlike spiny dorsal finned fish, salmonids have a special air bladder that allows them to swim from deep water to shallow water and vice versa.
I also am familiar with the way the USA stocks fish and the superior success rate they have along with excellent conservation methods. Take NY for example: they have a one steelhead limit for most of their tribs, and their excellent stocking programs help tremendously to achieve a good rate of return every year. We could learn a lot from our neighbours from the south.
I believe that most anglers realize that something must be done to try and improve the amount of fish returning to the tributaries and the state of the tributaries themselves. Judging by the poll results, many of you feel that something must be done.
It is always a fine line with angling opportunities and conservation. I believe that by reducing the daily catch limits for steelhead and brown trout in the tributaries (for example: a one fish limit year round in the tribs) and reducing the catch limits on Lake Ontario (for example: a two fish limit on Lake Ontario) will help to improve the return of fish to the tributaries. Again, I don’t believe that this will solve all the problems, but it is a start. I think that a large group of anglers working together with the OMNR can help to achieve a more conservation oriented approach for steelhead and brown trout while still offering great angling opportunities both on the lake and in the tributaries.
We can make a difference if we work together!
Aaron Shirley
The decline of steelhead and brown trout on the tributaries of Lake Ontario has been a concern of mine (and many other tributary anglers) for several years. I have been fishing Lake Ontario tributaries steady for over 25 years now, and I have never seen the return of steelhead and brown trout as poor as it has been in the last couple of years. I have sadly watched the decline happen over the years, as have most Lake Ontario tributary anglers I have spoken to. It is a fact that the return of steelhead and brown trout numbers have steadily declined over the past 10 years in the tributaries of Lake Ontario.
I am not saying that reducing the daily catch limit will solve all the issues relating to this topic. I know that there are many other factors contributing to the major decline and much more needs to be done to help. For instance, the water levels in the tributaries have significantly reduced over time, more and more sub divisions are being built close to the rivers, and some tributaries have silted up considerably and the flow disrupted from ideal conditions due to beaver dams. The baitfish in Lake Ontario has also declined over the years, resulting in less stocking.
I do not believe that all steelhead and brown trout that are released in the open waters of Lake Ontario die with post-release-mortality from being brought up from deep water. I know that some of the fish do die in the summer heat being brought up from deep water; however, I believe that most live if handled and released properly. Spiny dorsal finned fish like walleye, perch and bass will die being brought up from deep water, as their air bladder will normally expand too much and pop out of their throats. Unlike spiny dorsal finned fish, salmonids have a special air bladder that allows them to swim from deep water to shallow water and vice versa.
I also am familiar with the way the USA stocks fish and the superior success rate they have along with excellent conservation methods. Take NY for example: they have a one steelhead limit for most of their tribs, and their excellent stocking programs help tremendously to achieve a good rate of return every year. We could learn a lot from our neighbours from the south.
I believe that most anglers realize that something must be done to try and improve the amount of fish returning to the tributaries and the state of the tributaries themselves. Judging by the poll results, many of you feel that something must be done.
It is always a fine line with angling opportunities and conservation. I believe that by reducing the daily catch limits for steelhead and brown trout in the tributaries (for example: a one fish limit year round in the tribs) and reducing the catch limits on Lake Ontario (for example: a two fish limit on Lake Ontario) will help to improve the return of fish to the tributaries. Again, I don’t believe that this will solve all the problems, but it is a start. I think that a large group of anglers working together with the OMNR can help to achieve a more conservation oriented approach for steelhead and brown trout while still offering great angling opportunities both on the lake and in the tributaries.
We can make a difference if we work together!
Aaron Shirley
-
Aaron Shirley
- Participant
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 2:41 pm
- Location: Burlington, Ontario
- Contact:
Hi Markus, I respect your opinion. I do have a difference of opinion. These are my thoughts... I do believe that most of the steelhead that are released in the open waters of Lake Ontario do live, unlike Chinook salmon.
Here are my reasons for this belief: steelhead are not located in the cold deep water typically where Chinook salmon are found. Steelhead normally are located in 30-feet or less and are not subject to the same temperature shock as Chinook salmon located in deep water when brought to the surface. This is why steelhead are normally already jumping out of the water by the time someone can grab the rod.
Steelhead are smaller in size and also fought for much less time than Chinook salmon, resulting in less fatigue and lactic acid build-up.
I believe that many more Chinook salmon die post-release mortality than steelhead, because they fight for a much longer period of time and are normally located in deeper colder water.
I do not disagree that some steelhead that are released in the open waters of the lake are a victim of post-release-mortality, especially the large specimens. I do believe however, that most of the steelhead do survive when released in the open water if handled properly.
Aaron
Here are my reasons for this belief: steelhead are not located in the cold deep water typically where Chinook salmon are found. Steelhead normally are located in 30-feet or less and are not subject to the same temperature shock as Chinook salmon located in deep water when brought to the surface. This is why steelhead are normally already jumping out of the water by the time someone can grab the rod.
Steelhead are smaller in size and also fought for much less time than Chinook salmon, resulting in less fatigue and lactic acid build-up.
I believe that many more Chinook salmon die post-release mortality than steelhead, because they fight for a much longer period of time and are normally located in deeper colder water.
I do not disagree that some steelhead that are released in the open waters of the lake are a victim of post-release-mortality, especially the large specimens. I do believe however, that most of the steelhead do survive when released in the open water if handled properly.
Aaron