Quinte Fishing

Thanks for posting Greenlantern. There's nothing quite like first hand experience to use as a model. Without knowing which deep divers you were using nor the trolling speed, it's impossible to speculate about your fishing depth. Regardless, the great news was that you saw no extended swim bladders. The trolling bible (Precision Trolling) discusses the "20 Plus" method where 1 oz weights snap weights are placed 20 feet in front of crankbaits. Diving depths are apparently increased by 1/3 rd using this method.

Hi all.
I decided to reread this whole thread top to bottom. I think I should state that I do not consider myself an expert on any of the topics listed and in particular as a fisherman. I am just a guy passing on what little I know.
On that note I apologize if I have come off as something I am not.
Tomcat. I went to that website and found it very informative. Thank you. I found the mortality rate of Lakers quite a surprise. The jist I got out of it was that fizzing requires skill, and can be a usefull tool. It can also be deadly. For the record It will remain one of my tools but I only use it in dire circumstances after all other techniques have been exhausted. Fishing shallow is the best, no doubt. There is something we have missed on this topic as well I think. The actual handling of the fish. We should wear gloves[cotton i believe], this way we don't remove the slime. The slime protects the fish from infection and that is referred to as long term mortality, something we don't see the effects of as it takestime to kill the fish. The type of mesh in our landing nets can do the same thing. There is an additive put in most holding tanks at Tourneys that supposedly agitates the fish into making slime to replace that which was removed during all the handling. I don't think we can buy it though. Another handling technique which is very hard to follow, is not sqeezing the fish. this does great damage to the internal organs and once again causes long term mortality. Mechant has an excellent question that I could go either way on. Anybody else?
Cheers Clark

Wow, that took a while to read through!!

A few things to add...

1. As "Méchant Malade" noted, using lighter line helps force us to bring fish in slowly, it also increases diving depth on our lures. So rather than using 20 pound test and a downrigger to get 40 feet deep, try using 8 to 12 pound fireline and run a stretch 20 on a long lead. Keep the boat moving forward slowly and bring that fish in, snap a pic or two and watch it power back down on release. So, are riggers really necessary? By the way Méchant Malade, your english is fine, I think we all understood your message.

2. As for handling fish, "Walleye" mentioned not squeezing the fish.... I want to mention not putting fingers into the gills. We all see pictures of guys with hands and fish that are very bloody. I have never seen a walleye bleed like that from hook wounds. I have seen them bleed like that from clumsy fingers mashing the gills into the rakers. Fish bleeding from the gills are likely mortally injured. So even if you bring it in slowly and avoid the over-inflation, you can still kill it with one finger. Careful handling, a wet cotton glove on the tail and a hand under the belly are much less damaging than hoisting a 10 pound fish by it's gill plate, what happens when it starts to thrash?

3. Fizzing is a method used to release the pressure from the bladder. I will never try it unless I am shown by someone that knows exactly what they are doing. I watched a biologist fizz a fish at perfect vue this spring when someone brought in a stressed fish for the derby. the fish was on it's side, but still alive. He spent about 15 to 20 minutes playing with this fish and SLOWLY letting gas out of the bladder through a hypdermic needle.

Yo: thank you for the good word. I was writing my post at the same as you were posting.

I read something once on how to handle a fish and what they were saying is: one of the worst way to handle a big fish his to hold that fish by the gills, head-up and tail down; the spinal bone of a fish is not build to endure that kind of treatment: never see a fish walking on his tail.
I think we should use the same kind of tool the musky expert are using:

and some gloves to protect the slime. I think by using a cradle it minimize handling. Big fish are not jumping or falling on boat floor, you running at it and sometime with no other choice of squeezing it hard to hold it.
In the craddle, remove the hook take the fish under the belly and by the tail, camera ready: photo and back in the water.

This has got to be one of the very best threads I have ever had the pleasure of reading.
What began as a fall tip, has growen into a very informitive thread. All those participating are to be commended for their input and concern. Great work by all.

Just one question though. Why would someone use 20lb line in the clear water of the Quinte?? I use cheap 20lb with a 12lb leader for salmon, they average 15-30lb and could almost eat those walleye.

slug

fishing for the enjoyment of the sport

I've used 20lb mono for the last 15 years on Quinte and will probably keep using it for the next 15! Why?-
-I've never had a break off
-I like the stretch factor when handling a large fish 100's of yards out. Acts as a shock absorber for large fish, won't pull the hooks out or bend the hooks. The hooks on many of the popular cranks are crap and yah, I could spend more money and buy replacement hooks, but my line takes care of alot of that for me!
_ the stretch factor again, in rough water helps impart more action on my board/crank
-cost! way cheaper then anything else
-really don't believe that these fish are line shy. They'll smack anything that goes by them with the right wobble. These fish are on the feed!
-works better than braid in sub zero temps. braid will hold water/ice
Hope this helps?

Hi all.
I just found an old Walleye Insider with an article about tourney mortality rates. It was done by Queens University and involved only spring and early summer tourneys so deep caught fish weren't a factor. The jist was that the walleye were oxygen depleted and stayed that way for quite some time. I think I have seen tablets that add oxygen to the water but I am not sure, might have been dreaming of a big one and that was just part of the dream. I quite often get bags of minnows with oxygen blown into the bag, is it possible we could do something like that? Also the Authors said that in their opinion the actual handling of the fish caused the most stress and probably was the biggest factor in mortality as this caused the fish to use up the available oxygen.
I have not paraphrased, this is just my opion of the article. Now I have even more to think about. WOW.
Cheers Clark

Hi again Clark:

When I spoke with Steve Kerr WRT whether there was a more current publication on fizzing other than the one he published in 2001, Steve alerted me to the existence of a July 2005 MNR publication entitled "Catch and Release Angling: A Review with Guidelines for Proper Fish Handling Practices". I have read the document and I believe its worthwhile reading for any fisherman. The author's name is Steven Casselman. I telephoned him to ascertain how anyone interested could get a copy. At this time, you'll need to telephone him at 705-755-1841 to have him mail you a copy. However, Steven will attempt to make the publication available on the MNR site.

Hi all.
Tomcat thanks. I tryied calling Steve on Friday with no joy. I will try again next week.
Cheers Clark

Tomcat
If you have this in a format that can be emailed and it is a decent length ....not exceeding say 10 pages, I would also like to get a copy.

Was this the same gentleman that was based out of Glenora by the same last name (he did some fine work on aging fish if I recall correctly and was actually a decent public speaker...; no offence scholars but some are far too dry....lol).

____________________________________________________________

I wish and pray for the day that MNR actually lets any decent information actually out on a regular basis. Decent projects and individual work that is remotely helpful deserves to be out in the open. Archaic public information handling, policy, management practices continues to allow questionable performance to rule, instead of encouraging the people and the organization to become the best that it can be in any area.

Regards

Don Stokes

Hello Don:

I sent you an email but didn't get a reply - have you changed your email address? If so, please private message me with new one.

The publication by Steve Casselman is 26 pages. I do not have an electronic version. I had my copy mailed to me. I discussed your point with Steve when I spoke with him during the week about ensuring information be made easily available to the client community (i.e. fishermen). If the information isn't easily available, then what's the point? The problem may lie with Ramsay - doesn't appear that grass root fishermen requirements on high on his list of priorities. I'm not aware of Casselman's work history.

Hello Tomcat
Yes my email is the same. I have not yet responded....apologies.

As to the exchange of information, I remain convinced it is a combination of matters that handcuff staff and equally innovative management. I believe in full that the union-management relationship is drastically out of date, with how business is conducted. Innovation and leadership seem stifled in my opinion. The relationship with the actual consumer....the tax paying public is one needs a lot of work.

I would like to see MNR operated using more of a modern business model. In responce to a problem or equally an opportunity, I would like to see some dynamic creative thinking and related management to and encourage a proactive responce. I would like to see this developed and nurtured.

As it stands one has an employee and management group that at times feels threatened by the public. This is out of step with the reality of todays world and how any remotely successful business is operated. With the number of recreational anglers, these folks need to "get with the times" .

Sorry for the rant to everyone. I want the best for the tax paying public and see many opportunities missed.

I would actually like to pursue this as an opportunity somewhere down the road on a contract basis. I actually still believe in what I do.

Regards
Don Stokes

......... wow 40 something posts on this subject and still going strong ......... its pain to see that MOST. most not all fishermen do care about the offects they have on the fish they catch.......... When we go hunting, we eat or give away what we kill. why? well because how wrong would it be to shoot a deer, then walk away from it once its down and we looked at it. snapped a picture of it, then walked away........... not that there isnt hunters out there who dont eat the game they choose to kill, .... seems to me its not always just about catching fish even though thats what we are there for... i often hunt without killing waiting on the trophy buck instead......... ok you want a trophy walleye for what ever reason.. fine so be it. go catch ONE but dont catch all you can at the risking of killing them, so you can say im a catch and reliece fisherman.... as sports men we are all intiteled to reep the benifits of our hard labors, but if we dont think about the possible harm we do to the fish we bring up from the deep there will be a day when we as old men will say i remember back in the day when 12 pound plus fish were common.......its because of our efforts as soprtsman that has made things better than they were back in the 1920's when people ate everything they cought........... there was a time when a deer was almost unseen in the woods. wild turkeys almost non existant.......... durring the great depression wild game was shot and sent to big cities for profit to the point where you could walk the bush for weeks and never even see a deer.......... its our own conservation that brough things back to where they are today and with any luck at all its only going to get better and better............