101 replies to this topic

[JimCanuck]

Also note,

http://www.citizen.o...p_invasion.html - MNR

“Common carp aggressively disrupt habitat, uprooting aquatic vegetation and stirring up sediments that impacts other plants and animals,” says MNR Great Lakes research scientist Tim Johnson. “Many coastal wetlands surrounding the Great Lakes and inland lakes suffer from the presence of carp.”

http://www.dfo-mpo.g...s-especes_e.asp - Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Common Carp, Cyprinus carpio
Common carp are large fish measuring 35-50 cm long, which makes them the biggest members of the minnow family. Common carp are native to the fresh waters of Europe and Asia. These fish were first brought to Canada and the United States in the 1800's because they were thought to be a good fish to eat. Unfortunately, this fish spread rapidly and moved into other areas. Common carp are invasive because they damage shorelines by uprooting plants and muddying the water. This ruins the habitat for other fish and insects.

http://www.invadings...m?A=Page&PID=20 - Joint effort by both the MNR and the OFAH

Invasive Carp

Common carp have predominantly vegetarian diets but will also feed on aquatic invertebrates. Their feeding activity has severe impacts on wetland habitats because they suck up sediments and organisms from the bottom, uproot and destroy vegetation and muddy the water.

http://www.mnr.gov.o...prod_096270.pdf - a MNR draft of proposals for Lake Ontario

Invasive fish species include Alewife, Rainbow Smelt, White Perch, Common Carp, Round Goby, Tubenose Goby, and possibly Sea Lamprey.

And there is many more recent MNR publications that list common carp as a invasive species.

Jim

[riverhugger]

So if carp are invasive and destroy our fisheries why is it illegal to pull them out of the lake but not eat them (like a goby).

Or is it legal to treat them like a goby?

[NADO]

So if carp are invasive and destroy our fisheries why is it illegal to pull them out of the lake but not eat them (like a goby).

Or is it legal to treat them like a goby?

Politics. The problem is that there are advocacy groups comprised of Carp Angling Enthusiasts that have succeeded in changing the classification to naturalized. They may be classified as naturalized but it should also be noted that there is no limit or season for when you can catch carp. They tried to come up with a solution to make both groups happy. It is interesting that while they are no longer on the same list as Gobies there is still efforts conducted by the MNR and volunteers all over the province to reduce carp populations in problem areas.

[mikeh]

So if carp are invasive and destroy our fisheries why is it illegal to pull them out of the lake but not eat them (like a goby).

Or is it legal to treat them like a goby?

they're not.

[riverhugger]

they're not.

Not invasive or not destructive or both?

Classification aside (invasive/naturalized) it seems there is little doubt based on the information provided here that our lakes and streams would be better off without the carp!

[JimCanuck]

Or is it legal to treat them like a goby?

I got to be honest, both from talking to MNR Conservation Officers while fishing, and at the Sportsmans show, plus all of the CURRENT brochures, websites, and other literature available from the MNR online still listing the Common Carp as a invasive species.

Other then the fact that they were omitted from the regulations summery. Summery being the key word, as its not the definitely answer to anything, according to any CO you'll ever talk to, there are specific laws, both Provincial and Federal that one must adhere to that may contradict the topics in the Summery. Its actually a test question on the Ontario Hunter Safety course, that just because something is in the summery, doesn't mean its the complete, or for that matter correct answer.

Clearly when the MNR is still producing publications, and hosting kill off the carp events, as recently as 2 months ago, that I linked to, claiming that common carp is invasive, well then the summery is wrong in this case!

Still there is plenty of information out there, both by the MNR, the Federal Government and other Parks/Wildlife groups that list Common Carp as a invasive species. Such as the Toronto Region Conservation Authority ( http://www.tommythom...ritage/fish.dot ), London Ontario is actively removing carp from their waters by playing with the water table and netting them all ( http://www.thecoves....item.php?id=199 ).

So clearly, the delusions of Carp being treated as anything but a invasive species is limited only to a few people, and not to the Government, or the vast majority of fishing organizations, including the LARGEST organization in Ontario, the OFAH who works hand in hand with the MNR and hosts the invasive species website for the MNR, still listing common carp as a invasive species.

Which means, live release of carp back into the waters, could be constructed to be a violation of the various wildlife protection acts that bars intentional release of invasive species into our water ways.

Jim

[salmotrutta]

salmontrutta,

This is a good read,

http://www.mnr.gov.o...prod_068673.pdf

I don't know where your link got the information from, but the release of Carp into multiple bodies of water here in Ontario in 1880, was completely intentional. Even the MNR isn't hiding that fact.

Jim

I had read that earlier, so I thought it was interesting what CLOCA has on their site. I don't think CLOCA is a very reliable source. Perhaps they mean, common carp were introduced into waters within the CLOCA jurisdiction by unintentional release?

Like with pacific salmon in Ontario, different sources say different things about initial stocking. Some say it was for sport many decades ago which I think is correct, others say it was to control lake shad and smelt populations later on. They were stocked to help control baitfish populations at one time, but that wasn't the first time they were stocked.

[JimCanuck]

I had read that earlier, so I thought it was interesting what CLOCA has on their site. I don't think CLOCA is a very reliable source. Perhaps they mean, common carp were introduced into waters within the CLOCA jurisdiction by unintentional release?

Perhaps, but the massive importation of Common Carp from Europe was done intentionally by the government originally.

Like with pacific salmon in Ontario, different sources say different things about initial stocking.

Well Chinooks were stocked quite a while ago, initially because of Atlantic Salmon declines, and more then likely continued to be stocked for that reason, any side benefits, such as smelt (which were not established in Ontario waters for a few decades after the introduction of Chinook and Rainbow Trout), are probably icing on the cake for the MNR (or which ever name it used at that specific time period, as a Department of the government its been through its fair share of names).

Jim

[NADO]

So clearly, the delusions of Carp being treated as anything but a invasive species is limited only to a few people, and not to the Government, or the vast majority of fishing organizations, including the LARGEST organization in Ontario, the OFAH who works hand in hand with the MNR and hosts the invasive species website for the MNR, still listing common carp as a invasive species.

Thank god. I have a few friends who went to school for and work in the field of environmental management and they all will tell you that Common Carp are invasive. For some people it doenst matter what you can say or prove, they are a brick wall and nothing will ever break through. The key is to scream louder than they scream, otherwise their incorrect opinion will end up being considered factual and everyone loses. Well everyone but those who love to do nothing but sit in their chair and wait for bites.

[ChaseChrome]

Carp are considered an elusive and desirable quarry to some...not for this guy though. As far as the stupidity of the infinite regress (parading as "logic") by some; it is to laugh at. By such "logic" when the continent was a single land mass (Pangaea) there were NO "invasive" species...hmmmmmmm

[hammercarp]

I got to be honest, both from talking to MNR Conservation Officers while fishing, and at the Sportsmans show, plus all of the CURRENT brochures, websites, and other literature available from the MNR online still listing the Common Carp as a invasive species.

Other then the fact that they were omitted from the regulations summery. Summery being the key word, as its not the definitely answer to anything, according to any CO you'll ever talk to, there are specific laws, both Provincial and Federal that one must adhere to that may contradict the topics in the Summery. Its actually a test question on the Ontario Hunter Safety course, that just because something is in the summery, doesn't mean its the complete, or for that matter correct answer.

Clearly when the MNR is still producing publications, and hosting kill off the carp events, as recently as 2 months ago, that I linked to, claiming that common carp is invasive, well then the summery is wrong in this case!

Still there is plenty of information out there, both by the MNR, the Federal Government and other Parks/Wildlife groups that list Common Carp as a invasive species. Such as the Toronto Region Conservation Authority ( http://www.tommythom...ritage/fish.dot ), London Ontario is actively removing carp from their waters by playing with the water table and netting them all ( http://www.thecoves....item.php?id=199 ).

So clearly, the delusions of Carp being treated as anything but a invasive species is limited only to a few people, and not to the Government, or the vast majority of fishing organizations, including the LARGEST organization in Ontario, the OFAH who works hand in hand with the MNR and hosts the invasive species website for the MNR, still listing common carp as a invasive species.

Which means, live release of carp back into the waters, could be constructed to be a violation of the various wildlife protection acts that bars intentional release of invasive species into our water ways.

Jim

That last statement is not only false but does not even make sense.. How can catching a carp and returning it to the waters it was caught in be a violation. It isn't even a violation to C&R the invasive species listed. It only states that you cannot possess live invasive species. You cannot possess it if you released it. I know that the summary is just that , a summary and is not the actual body of laws. It is completely deranged to think that an average person should carry around or have committed to memory that vast amount of legal writings governing fishing here in Ontario. We live by what is practical and pragmatic.

[JimCanuck]

It isn't even a violation to C&R the invasive species listed.

Actually it is, there is only ONE law that allows Catch and Release, and its quite clear.

Release of Fish

12. A person, other than a person fishing under a commercial fishing licence, who catches a fish, other than an invasive fish, the retention or possession of which is prohibited by these Regulations shall immediately return the fish to the waters from which it was caught and, if the fish is alive, release it in a manner that causes the least harm to that fish.

Regardless of the other laws about invasive species, this one sums it up nicely.

Jim

[hammercarp]

"12. A person, other than a person fishing under a commercial fishing licence, who catches a fish, other than an invasive fish, the retention or possession of which is prohibited by these Regulations shall immediately return the fish to the waters from which it was caught and, if the fish is alive, release it in a manner that causes the least harm to that fish."

You have completely misinterpreted this law. It says that you cannot possess live invasive species. That;s all it says regarding invasive fish. It does not say it it illegal to C&R them. If you practice C&R you are not retaining or possessing the fish. So you cannot be in violation by practicing C&R.
Your deliberate twisting of facts does no good service to others that participate in this forum.

Now that I have calmed down I will explain this to you.

This laws says that it is not illegal if you fail to return an invasive species. It does not say it is illegal to return it. There is a big difference . The reasons for this are obvious if you objectively think it through.

[JimCanuck]

You have completely misinterpreted this law.

Apparently you are the one misreading it. Its topic title is the RELEASE of fish not Possession of fish. Possession of Invasive species has its entire own section.

Invasive fish

6. (1) No person shall possess live invasive fish without a licence issued under subsection (2).
(2) The provincial Minister may issue a licence to a person to possess specified species and quantities of live invasive fish if
(a ) they are a qualified fisheries researcher working in a recognized research facility;
(b ) they have, and will use, the equipment and controls necessary to protect against any release of invasive fish into Ontario waters; and
(c ) the purpose of their possession is for scientific research on the potential impact of the species in Ontario, the mitigation of those impacts or the prevention or control of their spread.

Which means, a standard fishing license is not valid to posses live invasive species, a research license/wavier is required to simply posses invasive species.

So let me quote it again ...

Release of Fish

12. A person, other than a person fishing under a commercial fishing licence, who catches a fish, other than an invasive fish, the retention or possession of which is prohibited by these Regulations shall immediately return the fish to the waters from which it was caught and, if the fish is alive, release it in a manner that causes the least harm to that fish.

Now to shrink it down to the important parts ...

Release of Fish

12. A person, who catches a fish, other than an invasive fish, the possession of which is prohibited by these Regulations shall immediately return the fish to the waters from which it was caught.

Its illegal to possess invasive species, and the moment a fish is landed its in your possession, and its also illegal thanks to this clause to release it back into the waters, regardless if possession is legal or not when its a invasive species.

Its the same thing MNR CO's get people with who land their 6th combined salmon/trout. Regardless if your going to practice catch and release, the moment your possession is over the limit your liable for a offence under the act. I have personally seen CO's give tickets to people who land their 6th salmon during a salmon run no matter how much the person whined he was going to release it.

Please, next time READ the entire section of the law, actually ... how about just simply understanding the title before you spew your response back.

Jim

[NADO]

What about the countless sources of information that Jim posted stating that Common Carp are invasive, did you miss that part HammerCarp?

I said it before in another thread and ill say it again. You are a brick wall, it doesnt matter what information is presented to you, you will never change your view. I dont really give a **** what you think just stop trying to push your non-invasive and CAG agenda here and everyone will leave your threads alone. The second you post anything stating Carp arent invasive...well...your going to have a whole bunch of members jumping on your thread like a pig in Sh1t.

[staffman]

Jim you seemed to be very stubborn and probably mean to deter the spread of invasive species. The MNR does not consider the common carp as an invasive species. If you can find their website and type in common carp they will tell you the current Ontario record,where you can expect to catch them and a list of preferred baits to catch them on. I'm sorry you wasted so much time on this topic. there are some species of carp that are considered invasive, however the common carp is not among them.

[NADO]

Also note,

http://www.citizen.o...p_invasion.html - MNR



http://www.dfo-mpo.g...s-especes_e.asp - Fisheries and Oceans Canada



http://www.invadings...m?A=Page&PID=20 - Joint effort by both the MNR and the OFAH



http://www.mnr.gov.o...prod_096270.pdf - a MNR draft of proposals for Lake Ontario



And there is many more recent MNR publications that list common carp as a invasive species.

Jim

Jim may be a little over the top with his responses but most of what he has said is true other than the releasing of Common Carp and invasive species part, but that isnt the topic of this thread.

Did everyone miss the above post Jim made? or did everyone just ignore it?

All of these links are concrete evidence that common carp are invasive. Can at least one person give a rebuttle to this post and not just ignore it because it doesnt support their opinion?

[JimCanuck]

Jim you seemed to be very stubborn and probably mean to deter the spread of invasive species. The MNR does not consider the common carp as an invasive species.

Please read the post that NADO is quoting above, there is a TON of documentation that is more recent then the publication of the current Regulations Summery, and actions by the MNR that clearly prove that the MNR still considers them a invasive species.

But to help you along some of the infromation that proves Common Carp is still a invasive species:

By the way as recently as April, the MNR co-sponsored a "get rid of the invasive carp" type of fishing along with Seneca College.

http://www.senecacol...cocarpfest.html

http://listserv.sene...nglers_host_eco

Cut the carp out.

That’s exactly what Seneca College, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ontario Chinese Anglers Association are attempting to do.

Carp are deemed an invasive species in King, particularly in Lake Seneca and its channels and all three organizations are working towards restoring a balanced eco-system in the area.

On Sunday, Seneca hosted the Seneca King Campus Eco Carp Fest, which sought to teach young girls from various organizations how to fish, while at the same time, teach them different ways to cull the invasive species.

“We want to help balance the ecosystem in the lake,” explained Carmen Schlamb, an environmental teacher at Seneca, and event organizer. “We try to pull carp out once a year to balance the population so native fish don’t have as much competition for food.”

Plus my links right at the start of page 4 ... Showing both the MNR and Federal Government, consider Common Carp a invasive species.

http://www.citizen.on.ca/news/2011-06-02/Regional_News/MNR_braces_for_Asian_carp_invasion.html - MNR

“Common carp aggressively disrupt habitat, uprooting aquatic vegetation and stirring up sediments that impacts other plants and animals,” says MNR Great Lakes research scientist Tim Johnson. “Many coastal wetlands surrounding the Great Lakes and inland lakes suffer from the presence of carp.”

http://www.dfo-mpo.g...s-especes_e.asp - Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Common Carp, Cyprinus carpio
Common carp are large fish measuring 35-50 cm long, which makes them the biggest members of the minnow family. Common carp are native to the fresh waters of Europe and Asia. These fish were first brought to Canada and the United States in the 1800's because they were thought to be a good fish to eat. Unfortunately, this fish spread rapidly and moved into other areas. Common carp are invasive because they damage shorelines by uprooting plants and muddying the water. This ruins the habitat for other fish and insects.

http://www.invadings...m?A=Page&PID=20 - Joint effort by both the MNR and the OFAH

Invasive Carp

Common carp have predominantly vegetarian diets but will also feed on aquatic invertebrates. Their feeding activity has severe impacts on wetland habitats because they suck up sediments and organisms from the bottom, uproot and destroy vegetation and muddy the water.

http://www.mnr.gov.o...prod_096270.pdf - a MNR draft of proposals for Lake Ontario

Invasive fish species include Alewife, Rainbow Smelt, White Perch, Common Carp, Round Goby, Tubenose Goby, and possibly Sea Lamprey.

So, yeah, please read the links, and understand that Common Carp is still a targeted invasive species by the MNR, cause clearly fishing to remove as much as Carp as possible is a Okay move still as the MNR is still actively supporting these goals!

Jim

[hammercarp]

Apparently you are the one misreading it. Its topic title is the RELEASE of fish not Possession of fish. Possession of Invasive species has its entire own section.

You were the one that used this as a point in the discussion. I merely gave you the correct understanding of it.

"Release of Fish

12. A person, other than a person fishing under a commercial fishing licence, who catches a fish, other than an invasive fish, the retention or possession of which is prohibited by these Regulations shall immediately return the fish to the waters from which it was caught and, if the fish is alive, release it in a manner that causes the least harm to that fish."


Which means, a standard fishing license is not valid to posses live invasive species, a research license/wavier is required to simply posses invasive species.

So let me quote it again ...



Now to shrink it down to the important parts ...



Its illegal to possess invasive species, and the moment a fish is landed its in your possession, and its also illegal thanks to this clause to release it back into the waters, regardless if possession is legal or not when its a invasive species.

Its the same thing MNR CO's get people with who land their 6th combined salmon/trout. Regardless if your going to practice catch and release, the moment your possession is over the limit your liable for a offence under the act. I have personally seen CO's give tickets to people who land their 6th salmon during a salmon run no matter how much the person whined he was going to release it.

Please, next time READ the entire section of the law, actually ... how about just simply understanding the title before you spew your response back.

Jim

Pure nonsense.
Your example about the salmon does not apply. There is no possession limit on invasive species. You cannot go over a limit that does not exist.
Here is a much better example. If you catch a sturgeon here in Ontario while fishing for another species like walleye or smallmouth for example , where there is a ban on fishing for sturgeon and you land and release it you will not be charged.. Anglers post pictures of OOS catches on forums all over Ontario. If they state that they immediately released it, nothing has or ever will happen to them. You are talking through your hat.
If what you say is true than the moment you land any fish you are in possession of it. Then sell your gear and stay home because you have broken the law every time you caught OOS fish or a fish that is not in the slot limit . This is completely wrong headed thinking.
Also by your reasoning if you caught an invasive fish and did not put it back you are in violation of the law because of the you still were in possession of a live invasive fish even for a few seconds.
So to prevent all this law breaking according to your misguided thinking we all better just stay home for fear that we will break the law every time we wet a line.