87 replies to this topic

[Swing4Steel]

See i dont believe the bs. I would imagine with our runs, most rivers get seeded to carrying capacity. I keep the odd fish and using the roe is not wasting the fish.

[Swing4Steel]

And it works good too!

[Disco]

I am not on to stir up anything but statements that include such statements as , "I believe", "I think", "I feel" etc are not in any way hard science and therefor useless in nature.

The fact is our rivers are no where near their carrying capicity. If they were we would not have shrinking returns to our rivers. Places like the Ganny and Willy have pitiful runs compared to their giant runs they had 20 years ago. These numbers are posted on several web references. How can anyone assume the rivers carrying capacity is being met and ignore the actual return numbers of fish shrinking year after year.

In addition Harvest will happen no matter if a roe ban existed or not. Harvest in general reduces the number of fish in a river. This includeds fish for consumption. A one fish limit reduces harvest drastically on a run and would be a great solution. There have been several studies on this and the studies were posted for a time on the CRAA web site when CRAA lobbied to have harvest rates reduced.

Slitting a fish for roe is illegal and unethical not to mention disgusting. Anyone doing this is breaking the law and any roe ban would not stop any person breaking the law if they are currently breaking the law with no regard for the fish. Make many many laws and rules and those ethical will follow them. Those who are not ethical will continue to break laws to satisfy their own needs.

Do I personally care if their is a roe ban or you can use roe? No I do not because I have had no material based in science to prove or disprove the merits on either side. I have read several studies on reduced harvest rates and their impact on migratory steelhead runs. Also studies as to which fish are the most important fish to Steelhead runs.(maiden spawn ears) That is entirely another topic.

My point is the science of a river and the health of its ecosystem should establish the rules we need to protect and preserve our runs. No opinions made by guesses or what anyone was thought by our parents or grand parents matter.

Let's all be open to change when the health of a river. This should be the end goal of all fishermen with the best intention of the future of our fishery put the the forefront of our priorities. If a roe ban is best show me the studies and data and I am on board. If not then let's concentrate on things we know like pollution, run off, bank stabilization, river summer temps, fish harvest rates etc.

[Swing4Steel]

Urban sprawl has been dramatic since the 80s, and stocking numbers are way down. A lot of that good fishing was due to stocking. The strain from urbanization must be immense, especially on lake o tribs.
Remember there is lake fishing as well, and their harvest limits have been cut by 60% yet the numbers keep dropping.
From what i see on lake o tribs there is very little retention. Most guys c&r now and still the numbers drop.
Obviously numbers are down, but from what i can garner its a bigger issue than angler harvest. Something is up with the creeks and the main lake. Would you get more fish returning with full c&r? Probably a few, but it wouldn't be the saving grace for great lakes steelhead.

*disclaimer - this is my own uneducated bonehead opinion not to be used for scientific reference

[T-Ack]

The fish are spawning for a reason. I should rephrase my post earlier - for the most part as swingforsteel said that sections of the rivers are closed for spawning which is good. But I still think something has to be done further. People still end up fishing the sanctuary areas and this topic-people still killing fish for the roe. I think it's a few bad apples that make River fishermen look bad.

[asmodan]

I am not on to stir up anything but statements that include such statements as , "I believe", "I think", "I feel" etc are not in any way hard science and therefor useless in nature.

The fact is our rivers are no where near their carrying capicity. If they were we would not have shrinking returns to our rivers. Places like the Ganny and Willy have pitiful runs compared to their giant runs they had 20 years ago. These numbers are posted on several web references. How can anyone assume the rivers carrying capacity is being met and ignore the actual return numbers of fish shrinking year after year.

In addition Harvest will happen no matter if a roe ban existed or not. Harvest in general reduces the number of fish in a river. This includeds fish for consumption. A one fish limit reduces harvest drastically on a run and would be a great solution. There have been several studies on this and the studies were posted for a time on the CRAA web site when CRAA lobbied to have harvest rates reduced.

Slitting a fish for roe is illegal and unethical not to mention disgusting. Anyone doing this is breaking the law and any roe ban would not stop any person breaking the law if they are currently breaking the law with no regard for the fish. Make many many laws and rules and those ethical will follow them. Those who are not ethical will continue to break laws to satisfy their own needs.

Do I personally care if their is a roe ban or you can use roe? No I do not because I have had no material based in science to prove or disprove the merits on either side. I have read several studies on reduced harvest rates and their impact on migratory steelhead runs. Also studies as to which fish are the most important fish to Steelhead runs.(maiden spawn ears) That is entirely another topic.

My point is the science of a river and the health of its ecosystem should establish the rules we need to protect and preserve our runs. No opinions made by guesses or what anyone was thought by our parents or grand parents matter.

Let's all be open to change when the health of a river. This should be the end goal of all fishermen with the best intention of the future of our fishery put the the forefront of our priorities. If a roe ban is best show me the studies and data and I am on board. If not then let's concentrate on things we know like pollution, run off, bank stabilization, river summer temps, fish harvest rates etc.

I agree with you Disco

Harvest will happen no matter what

Problem that i have is with people keeping big females (ones over 10 pounds)

I think some kind of slot limit would help a lot because you want that kind a fish to spawn

[Swing4Steel]

How bout leave the fish to spawn and leave them the hell alone when they are doing so. I really don't get it with you River fisherman....the fish come up the river to spawn and they are being yanked every which way. No wonder why you see the numbers down ....you see every Tom, Dick and Harry railing the same fish ...that ultimately are there in those rivers for the same reason.....reproducing !

For the most part they are protected during the run. The majority of river section close until after the spawn, with a few small areas remain open close to the lake.
These are a naturalized fish that are here for economic benefit and are not benefitial to the natural environment.

[FrequentFlyer]

Certainly won't be considered scientific .
The topic is.
Ditch the roe need.
No secret stocking numbers down.
Many hunting regs limit the killing of females.
Fishing regs should follow this logic.
Simply release the females and enjoy higher returns.
Opener steel terrible table fare any way.

 

which hunting regs? in most cases the limit on females matches the take on males, deer you can have 2 or 3 buck tags, depending on zone, you can apply for doe tags.  moose, bull tags are hard to get, where its very easy to get a cow and calf tag.

 

roe ban will not work, most people buy it from sources such as fishheads or local tackle shops.

[Symmetre]

There's nothing wrong with using roe. Any half decent steelheader and salmon fisherman knows quite well.

[Fishbully]

Roe ban would be a step in the right direction, but fromit what ive witnessed this season; it isnt enough. Most anglers that ive seen are filling freezers with more than roe, just last week I walked up to a hole to find 4 guys fishing with 8 fish on the bank behind them. 6 were males. Gutting a fish for roe sucks; be it witnessing another angle or being the one gutting it. Im guilty of this. But the guys who want roe arent out there every day keeping limits.

[Symmetre]

How do you distinguish store bought from fresh river harvest.

 

Any half decent steelheader and salmon fisherman knows quite well.

[Symmetre]

Wow, you must really know a lot!

 

As any half decent steelheader and salmon fisherman knows quite well!

[fishfreek]

I like using roe, when everything else fails its a go to weapon in my arsenal. Now getting your hands on it gets tricky. You can buy it like a lot of guys do and tie your own bags (sizes and colours) . You can buy already tied roe bags witch is nice and convenient , or you can harvest ( legally) by keeping the fish and taking it home with you. In some cases I have witnessed the milking of hens and the removal of eggs and release without harming the fish. It looks wrong and in any MNR eyes it is a crime but when you see someone doing that instead of cutting the fish open and throwing it in the bush, I'd say that's a better way of doing it. I'm no pro in any way just learning like the rest of us. If you do see something wrong out there do not hesitate to take pictures and call the MNR 1 877 847 7667 or 1 800 222 8477. Just because they dress like Hollywood doesn't mean all anglers play by the rules.

[DILLIGAF?!]

I don't think a complete ban helps. Roe is very good bait. But how much does one need? If you're a very busy steelheader...you will probably have more than 1 season from a single fish. And I don't believe that fresh roe is better than 1 year old roe in the freezer.