2013 Kemptville stocking report

[Jimmy_1]

Yes but to me the "Hills" is too far of a drive, then a trek in just to catch tiny trout.

Its a beautiful place and likely I will visit it again for the peace and quiet. Catching anything is a bonus and would be put back promptly.

[Craig S]

It certainly seems to be a moving target, this business of getting a fishery "right", and enforcement and regulation both have a role to play. I do wonder, however, if there's an educational component missing in all of this. It's easy to imagine that a significant portion of the fishing community acts within the law without necessarily knowing the consequences of their actions, eg. keeping a limit of smallish, newly-stocked trout.

I wasn't around in the days before the mandatory Ontario Hunter Safety course, but it's my understanding that it had a significant effect on hunting practices and overall safety. It certainly caused my then-17-year-old self to think about hunting in a more responsible manner when I took the course many years ago. Perhaps it's time for a similar, mandatory course to be introduced for angling. And yes, I know that there would be a lot of complaining about costs, the sense of intrusion, and so on, but I can see such a course as being an investment in preserving and enhancing our fisheries. At any rate, if this sounds drastic, then consider the various pressures that have come to bear on the fisheries of Ontario in the last couple of decades: better technology, more anglers, invasive species, climate change, and the greater availability of information via the internet. I'd like to continue to enjoy good fishing opportunities, and for my kids to do so as well. Maybe it's at least worth having a discussion of the benefits of a formal training program.

Something to ponder.

Craig

[fishin mission]

Mandatory fishing course????????? are you kidding me have you lost your freeking mind..... get with it!

[Jimmy_1]

I really DON'T think we need any more courses in life.

The MNR releases the Fishing regs in several languages. Its YOUR responsibility to read them or make effort to understand regs. PERIOD.

We have driving licenses. People still drive drunk and/or high.

Things are always done with the BEST of intent yet usually yield less than desired results.

Hunter Safety Course? LOL
It's all multiple choice and specifically geared for a 12 year old to pass it (Was told this by my instructor).
I don't know about you but I'd have a REAL hard time letting a 12 year old use a gun. Heck a lot of can't hold back on a compound bow either.

Yes the course assists in perhaps making people more ethical regarding hunting. Doubtful its a huge amount though.

[Craig S]

I wasn't suggesting that an educational program replace enforcement or well-conceived regulations. But I do think that it could be of substantial benefit to the fishery precisely because it would create a greater emphasis on the ethical element of the sport.

Here in front of me I have my Hunter's Guide, the very same book I used when taking the mandatory hunting course back in '88. And do you know what the first section of the book emphasizes? Not hunting methods. Not firearm use. It's an entire chapter devoted to the importance of ethics. And believe me, the course instructor hammered that stuff home, and it has stayed with me. The instructor was a keen waterfowler, and I distinctly remember the group of us discussing the distinction between shooting a bird that flew into the decoys versus one that swam in and was--literally--a "sitting duck." As he said at the time, each was legal, and yet it was a choice that each of us had to make on a personal basis. We had a similar discussion regarding the hunting of black ducks, the numbers of which were particularly low at that time.

The point of all of this is that I think anglers as a group would benefit from thinking in these terms, and if a mandatory course is the way to accomplish then I'd be fine with it.

And if today's hunting course is aimed at the typical 12 year old, then I fail to see the problem with that. It's a perfect age for getting a young person thinking about the broader meaning of what they're doing when out hunting and fishing. Not having the physical strength to pull a bow is entirely irrelevant to a young person's ability to contemplate the consequences of his or her actions in the field.

I'm realistic about this. There would still be an element of the population that would break the law if they took a mandatory course, just as people still drink and drive and so on. But that's an enforcement issue. The rest of the fishing population would--in my view, anyway--become a better-educated and more thoughtful group, and just might tread a little more lightly on our resources.

Craig

[smitty55]

Craig I see it's your first post. Welcome to the forums. That's quite the start lol. While I believe your intent on education is laudable, that's really not the way to go about it. This is fishing, not hunting. There are no age limits. Maybe information packages on line or included in the regs (if you can find a hard copy) might help a bit, but ignorance is not usually the reason for abuse. It's mostly greed, plain and simple. Why else would anyone even fish for stockers?
It's not like it's that easy for the average guy anyway, specially if you're shore bound. Guys who do that know when and where to go on certain lakes. Believe it. Some also just don't give a crap because they know they won't get caught anyway so they take extra.Those are the poachers. And in some families that's just the way you were brought up. Take your limit if you can, the bigger the better, fill every tag, add it to the family larder so to speak. More of a rural lifestyle likely, more about sustenance. That's cool. If it's legal it's ok.

Many of these back lakes have been stocked since the seventy's. Without a doubt there are still some nice fish left in many of them, even the ones with easier access. But you can't really know for yourself by making one trip in and out. Spend a weekend camping, where you can fish first and last light and have the time to try different techniques. Then you can really decide for yourself. Don't forget that targeting larger fish often involves different techniques. Sometimes shore fishing can out fish a tube/canoe/boat. Throwing an air injected live worm on a slip sinker on the bottom on a nice point could catch the biggest fish in the lake. Or trolling a gang troll deep in the deepest water around midday even. That one I know for sure.

Cheers

p.s. The hunters course is a separate topic. Lets not hijack this thread. We can start a new one in the hunting forum.

[ganman]

If you are talking about fishing remote brook trout ponds and want quality fishing its simple.....NO ICE FISHING, NO ATV's, NO LIVE BAIT, reduced limits, single hook lures. Brook trout are one of the most gullible fish swimming. A typical 30 acre pond only has so many fish in it. A couple parties of ice fishermen with bait can put a real dent in it.

Also something beyond just dumping fish into a lake needs to take place. Is the issue with the stock Ontario MNR uses? All these ponds need to be poisoned to kill competetive species. You can't dump a few hundred 7" brook trout into a pond with hordes of stunted perch and expect a quality fishery. That is why you need live bait bans. Can't poison? Then instead of a thousand 7" brookies... stock with 500 two year old 14"-16" splake. They will clean up the perch. I believe that is the problem with Farren Lake. They have dumped in thousands of yearling trout which are too small to prey on the perch which in turn out compete the yearlings for food.

Maybe they should also hire Chris Fisher of the Bing Retreat as a consultant.

Also the stocking of Frontenac Arch and Madawaska Highlands ponds goes way back past the 70's. I am pretty sure stocking was widespread by the 20's and 30's. The program used to make todays look....sick

[Doug]

"Be careful what you wish for."

I was posted to Kingston when the province closed winter lake trout fisheries on Loughborough, Desert, Buck, Devil, and I forget how many other "back lakes" as a "temporary measure." I believe that was 1981, could have been 1980 or 1982 but anyways a long time ago. Several years ago, they re-opened Loughborough for year-round lake trout fishing. The others are still closed. So much for "temporary" closures.

All of the good will in the world, on behalf of the angling public, will not create the conditions for a spectacular rebound without significant money and resources being committed by the MNR. Good science, and better enforcement would surely help. The MNR budget has repeatedly been slashed by the McWynnety Lieberals and funding cuts have absolutely resulted in less field work by the biologists, less biologists to do the field work, and drastic enforcement cuts. Where our licence fees were formerly a SUPPLEMENT to the MNR budget, they now form a significant portion of it

And that would NOT include another tax grab for a FISHING COURSE. My strongly held "OPINION" is that most poachers and other persons committing infractions do so wilfully, not because of ignorance.

JMOYMV

Doug

[Craig S]

I wasn't trying to hijack the thread by bringing up the hunter safety course. I was simply using it as as example of how a mandatory education course can improve and/or preserve our use of a natural resource. I don't think it's the only approach to managing fisheries, but I think it could be a very effective tool, and right now it's being overlooked (as far as I know, anyway).

Look, I'm not naive. I don't believe for a second that a training course would completely prevent whatever degree of poaching now occurs. And I know full well that there are lots of anglers who act with a great deal of restraint, and keep perhaps few if any fish to eat. And still others will keep their limit of whatever they catch--as is their right under the law.

But again, I do believe that a training program could touch on a number of areas that pop up time and time again--that the trout fishing in such-and-such area isn't any good, or that another place is full of trash left by ice fishermen, or that the guy holding up his musky for a photo has his fingers firmly jammed in its gills. I think a lot of this sort of thing is preventable, and simply pointing at the regs and saying "it's there in the book" is missing an opportunity to head off some of this type of behaviour before it becomes a habit.

Here's how I think of it. Imagine a fictional group of 10 anglers, an "average" sample if you will. Of this group, perhaps two are highly upstanding types who do all the "right" things. This pair doesn't need enforcement, or much in the way of education. Regulations alone can deal with them.

Now imagine another individual at the completely opposite end of the spectrum. This guy is a complete reprobate, and poaches when and where he can. If he can manage to get twenty trout from a lake, he'll take them all. He knows that he's breaking the law, and doesn't care. For him, regulations don't matter, and trying to educate him is probably pointless. Enforcement is the only option in this case.

Now we're down to the remaining seven. Of these, let's suppose that one is what we'll term "opportunistic." He generally operates within the confines of the law, but he might casually toss a worm container along the shore when it's empty, or he'd keep that walleye that's an inch outside the slot limit if he was having a slow day on the water. This guy's behaviour can be modified if he's forced to sit and contemplate the broader consequences of his actions--preferably before he gets a lot of experience under his belt.

The remaining six are your generally average, law-abiding types. They have a good grip on the regs, and obey them. The benefit of having this group take a training course is that they're open to thinking about the broader consequences of their behaviour in the bigger picture. The point isn't to lecture these people about never eating fish, or taking a limit. But it gets them thinking about specific situations in which they might find themselves, so that instead of thinking "Cool, look at this seven pound walleye I just got--can't wait to get that home and impress my friends", they're thinking "This is an awesome fish, and an important one to this lake, so let's get a quick pic and let it go. If I get a two-pounder, I'll take that home instead." This group is highly trainable, and if they form the majority of the anglers out there (as I suspect they do), then they're a pretty important group because their collective actions have a much, much more profound impact on the overall fishery than do the other types. As this group goes, thus goes our fishery.

And if the MNR ever implements such a program, I won't think of it as a "tax grab". I'll think of the probable benefits, and refer to it as an investment.

Thanks for reading!

Craig

[ganman]

"Be careful what you wish for."

I was posted to Kingston when the province closed winter lake trout fisheries on Loughborough, Desert, Buck, Devil, and I forget how many other "back lakes" as a "temporary measure." I believe that was 1981, could have been 1980 or 1982 but anyways a long time ago. Several years ago, they re-opened Loughborough for year-round lake trout fishing. The others are still closed. So much for "temporary" closures.

All of the good will in the world, on behalf of the angling public, will not create the conditions for a spectacular rebound without significant money and resources being committed by the MNR. Good science, and better enforcement would surely help. The MNR budget has repeatedly been slashed by the McWynnety Lieberals and funding cuts have absolutely resulted in less field work by the biologists, less biologists to do the field work, and drastic enforcement cuts. Where our licence fees were formerly a SUPPLEMENT to the MNR budget, they now form a significant portion of it

And that would NOT include another tax grab for a FISHING COURSE. My strongly held "OPINION" is that most poachers and other persons committing infractions do so wilfully, not because of ignorance.

JMOYMV

Doug

Remote 30 acre brook trout ponds can't take that kind of pressure

Those lakes north of Kingston with native lake trout stocks were completely burnt out by the early 80's. They could not sustain the pressure that was put on them by ice fishing and should never have an open ice fishing season. The old two week season where people booked holidays around it would see a concentrated harvest beyond what managers saw was the capacity for the whole year.

Loughborough was and rightly so opened for year round fishing because it was no longer capable of supporting native lakers but had a substantial forage base that could handle the stocking of tens of thousands of trout. There are other lakes in the area like Loughborough capable of being heavily stocked and supporting a lot of fishing pressure.

[MichaelGA]

You just don't get it do you?

[ganman]

You just don't get it do you?

Geez thanks I was a jerk...sorry