2015 Brook Trout limit change for Zone 17

[salmotrutta]

From 5 to 2 (if you have a sport license), and 1 if you have a conservation license.

You'll be hard pressed to find anyone opposing this change, (or at least openly opposing).

They are real beauties to target, catch and observe, and they've taken a real hit from environmental degradation.

This begs the question, why did the MNR forget about zone 16?

 

[Shmogley]

Because zone 16 is heavily stocked more then any other zone for brook trout. Due to the high population here it takes a sustained effort to keep a balance between amount of fish and amount of angler pressure. The few "natural" brook trout streams that most people fish are heavily regulated and use barbless/no kill rulesets. Having fished streams here for many years i see better and larger brookies comming out to play more and more as time goes on so i cant say the approach is wrong.

i see no reason why people shouldn't be able to take their fish home if its from a stocked location. otherwise the barbless/no kill rules work just fine.

and lets be honest, lowering the daily limit from 2 to 1(conservation license) will it really solve anything? people will just go out more often to fill their freezer. yes it is a possession limit(including your cold storage) but last time i checked the MNR doesnt do house calls.

I support the current efforts to have a flat out barbless/nokill for "ALL" natural brook trout water and only allow harvests from stocked areas. thats the best approach imo. those who need meat take stocked fish, those who enjoy the beauty of nature can go enjoy their natural catch and release fishing avoiding the slaughterhouses.

 

[salmotrutta]

Because zone 16 is heavily stocked more then any other zone for brook trout.

Are you sure we're talking about the same zone?

i see no reason why people shouldn't be able to take their fish home if its from a stocked location.

If it's a stocked lake with 0 chance of natural reproduction - anglers should eat them to their heart's content. But if it's a stocked stream with the goal of building a self-sustaining population...

and lets be honest, lowering the daily limit from 2 to 1(conservation license) will it really solve anything?

Not much, but making it legal to keep 5/2 brook trout just seems wrong given that they are a native "trout" species that is dwindling fast in zone's 16 and 17 - when you compare that to the none-native rainbow limits.

 

[Shmogley]

This begs the question, why did the MNR forget about zone 16?

i meant in regards to this question. its not that theyve forgotten about it. they stock this area heavily and promote harvest by not reducing the limits.
like i said they stock zone 16 heavily due to the population here and more angling pressure. most of these stocking efforts are to have a population of fish for people to enjoy and harvest (if they choose) and to generate revenue via licenses and business profits, with some exceptions.

good example is my local trib here. has a stocking effort to renew a self sustaining brook trout population and no harvest or barbs are allowed. but in the same area theres a few lakes that stock close to 1200 trout every 2 years for the purpose of harvesting. putting a blanket limit doesnt really make sense for those situations because taking your limit form those lakes doesnt hurt the species in any way.

i strongly agree if the purpose of a water is to have a self sustaining population of brook trout there should be no harvesting allowed.

the limit counts in the regs dont reflect those "at risk" waters they reflect all waters. therefore instead of putting a blanket limit on brook trout, just have strict rules in the areas that need it, and let the limits stay where they are.

overall i agree with you. but wouldnt take it as far as cutting the limits in half or more

 

[Bow Man]

Should be zero.

 

[[email protected]]

good change!

and yes, the mnr does house calls, i know a few people where the knock on the door was a CO

 

[Shmogley]

good change!

and yes, the mnr does house calls, i know a few people where the knock on the door was a CO

thats good to hear because ive seen some usual suspects taking their limit for 2-3 days in a row and i know they cant possibly be eating that much daily.

but how would you even go about reporting that? do you follow the guy home or go over and ask what his name is? not likely to cooperate..

you could call the mnr and hope they get there in time.. but ive called them a total of 6 times last year and only once did they show up. and it was too late at that.

Should be zero.

i personally never take any trout home unless something bad happens. im huge on catch and release. but i dont get the logic of making something zero limit when most areas that have them are stocked.(at least in my zone)

isnt "no kill/nobarbs" rules enough? if you say no its not enough then what makes you think zero limit will make anything different happen? both rules promote releasing fish or facing consequences. if they dont work now why would they work later?

hopefully no ones taking this the wrong way but im just asking legit questions, and maybe you can make me see it in a different light

 

[[email protected]]

a picture of their license plate is all it takes

 

[NADO]

awesome, long overdue.

Now they need to change the Atlantic Salmon limit from 5 to 0 in Lake Ontario.

 

[fishermandan420]

I thought tics were a limit of 1?

 

[Snaggy]

Some streams really do get over pressured and are losing populations of brookies in zone 16, however there are a lot of streams that very little people know about and support a healthy population off brooks. I would still encourage a drop off on the limit. I take brookies once per year on my first trip out, then just do C&R for the remainder of the season

 

[Dozer]

Brookies AND browns please. 5 fish limit is absurd especially on tiny trickles that host small populations.