Fishing Report Oct.31-Nov.1 - page 3

Captain Hank · **Posted:** Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:35 pm

Mike,

I appreciate that you understand the "sensitive" point that I was trying to make about your earlier post. I have never met you but from what I have read on this board you sound like an honest guy with good fishing knowledge who just enjoys fishing - I am no different. I don't have a bad bone in my body. My "out of line" comments were deliberate: if they end up protecting large numbers walleyes from ending up on the dinner table or rose garden, then I am satisfied.
It is not the knowledgeable and dedicated fisherman out there who keep an occassional fish that I worry about (Speedtroll). Many of the guys that I fish with are strictly catch and release. But unless one actually checks the livewell(s) of other boats once they are back at dock (like I have on many occasions), you don't have a real grasp of how many fish are actually being kept (legal or slot). Count the number of posts/replies on this board and try to estimate how many people this influences.
As for not being able to keep a "mount" fish (Russ) every charter in Ontario should know that you don't actually need to keep a fish to have it mounted. All you need is a picture and accurate measurements. (Advanced Taxidermy). If your charter is telling you otherwise, question him.
Yes (Lone Ranger) I have been skunked on the BOQ before, as you probably have. Any one that claims they haven't is lying. I don't claim to be the best BOQ fisherman. I never have. The reason for the initial post wasn't because of jealousy, it is fish preservation - it isn't that difficult to figure out.

As for stimulating/maintaining the BOQ economy, I would think that limiting harvest would be one obvious method. Less fish "out", more fish remain "in", more charters catch fish, more resorts have clients, more restaurants have patrons, etc...Again, my only concern is fish preservation. I don't know the local charters personally, but are they sharing their success on this board? If not, why? It would seem to me that if the charters continually shared their fishing information, then clients wouldn't need them. Not a good business decision. So if you follow this logic, sharing information on this board actually "hurts" some local businesses.

Anyway,

The reason why I did not respond yesterday is because I was fishing...on the BOQ. We landed 8 of 9 walleye.

Captain Hank

Mike · **Posted:** Sun Nov 09, 2003 10:10 am

No hard feelings Captain Hank. You make a lot of good points.

First, the replica mounts is an excellent option when compared to the alternative. The fish goes back and the angler get the fish mounted. My buddy is actually getting the big one mounted via a replica by Advance Taxidermy.

I also understand that there are lots of charters that operate in the Bay of Qunite. If they shared their information then like you said they would likely hurt for some business as the anglers could just go out by them selves when armed with the right information. They is why they don't.

With the slot limit in place, the harvest of these big Walleye is very limited. Take our trip for example, we could have kept 12 Waleye (4 persons, 3 days and 1 Waleye over 25") over the slot. Before the slot limit was put in place we could have kept all 27 Walleye (4 persons, 3 days, 5 Walleye per day). What a difference the slot makes. Now, we didn't keep one fish on this trip but I just wanted to show how the slot is reducing the number of big fish that could be kept.

NOTE: The possession numbers would still have to be on a per day limit. (i.e.: in transport we could only keep a day limit of fish from the weekend). Just using these numbers as an example.

Anyhow, I always find it hard to post fishing reports on web boards. If you don't post enough information people ask the questions anyways to get the info and sometimes you are even given a hard time because some people don't believe you because you didn't provide all the info. On the flip side, if you provide too much information you have a scenario like this. I guess the key is to find something in the middle.

See you on the water.

Cheers,

Mike

baffish · **Posted:** Sun Nov 09, 2003 11:54 am

Mike, I believe the regs read possesion limit. Therefore, even if there 3 days and assuming you have not consumed the trophy, I think you are allowed one fish over the slot per person not 12.

Russ · **Posted:** Sun Nov 09, 2003 12:58 pm

Thanks for the information Captain Hank regarding the composite replica. Good idea. No hard feelings. Good luck.

passthepitonspete · **Posted:** Sun Nov 09, 2003 3:05 pm

Perhaps we are missing the real problem?

First of all, anyone with half a brain knows that eating big walleyes from the Bay of Quinte is hazardous to your health! Those big mommas are so full of contaminants, you'd have to be crazy to want to eat one! Besides, they taste like sawdust anyway.

But isn't the real problem that the natives are over-harvesting?

Now, I am doing this entirely from memory, and after living on the side of a cliff for a couple months, my memory may be a bit addled. However it is my recollection that walleye harvest by anglers in the Bay is something like 35,000 fish per year, but that the natives take out something in the order of 115,000. Is this true?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why walleye numbers are declining. Are the natives in any way prepared to work with the Ministry and the anglers? What can be done ?

Or am I completely off base? [I might be]

Sorry if this is off topic - moderator please feel free to move this post wherever.

I'm a guy who catches a ton of walleye, but rarely eats any. [I'm just so bitchin', I can't catch one small enough to eat. Sheesh.] I think the slot limits are a great idea, and support them wholeheartedly. And illegally kept walleyes upset me immensely! I'd blow the whistle to the Ministry in a second if I knew someone was doing it.

I'm not trying to appeal to emotion, here, but to reason - can someone please quote the correct numbers? Also, please provide a link as to the source of the data?

Cheers,

Pete

Guest · **Posted:** Sun Nov 09, 2003 6:38 pm

Its a historic fact that captn Young the first loyalist to settle in prince edward county told the second guy not to tell anyone about the fishn, so it seems captn Hank is a bit more of a traditional fisherman. It used to be that a fisherman would get his 4 fish and run for home before anyone saw him on his favorite spot. Fishing and sport fishing are becoming two different things.

I would be more concerned about the guy C+Ring 50 ten inch eyes out of warm water and then spreading the word so everyone else can help wipe out the whole school, this is the time to do your C+R fishing.

Maybe you can go a little easier on capn Hank after all Christ didn't tell his friends where the fish were till after he died.
But if he sticks an uninvited nose in my fish box I'll kick his A$$. .....err Hank's not Christ's

lone ranger · **Joined:** Mon Sep 29, 2003 7:52 pm **Posts:** 183

Hold on, it seems to me that Captain Hank is concerned with decline in fish population and the affects it would have on local businesses. Which I somewhat agree with. I agree that we should be concerned with decline of walleye but I think we should be more concerned with the natives and other fish predators ( goby). As a recreational fisherman, I enjoy going out and keeping the odd walleye for the dinner table. But to me, is it not the local businesses, resorts and fishing charters that are making money off of our natural resources? How are they helping stop the decline of the walleye population? Are they contributing money to the MNR to replenish the walleye being taken from the lake?

The Tech · **Posted:** Mon Nov 10, 2003 12:09 am

For one Lone Ranger, I don't know how you can say the local business', resorts or fishing charters are not making making money off the natural resources?? Thats ludicrous. Its a domino affect, the fish in the lake brings the recreational fisherman, the fisherman eat or buy at the local business', stay at a resort, and do indeed use charters. As for basically blaming the natives for a decline, at least thats how I saw your post, I can bet there are dozens of lakes around ontario, that are on the decline, but not because of natives, but non-native recreational fisherman keeping more fish than they should. As they're bad seeds in the native community, there are also bad seeds in the non-native recreational fisherman community, but the vast majority of both communities are good. As a side note, from what I have read on this forum this year, this is the best year for quantity they've had in years. Strange. Just my opinion.

Captain Hank · **Posted:** Mon Nov 10, 2003 9:19 am

I am not certain if the population of walleyes in the BOQ is in decline, on an increase or just remaining unchanged. Even the MNR recently admitted that their original estimates were incorrect.

What I have learned about the BOQ is that the walleye don't always seem to congregate in the same areas every year. So don't go to the same point that you caught a 10 pounder at last year and expect to catch another. It may happen, but it certainly isn't guaranteed. It takes 'many outings' to locate them, and then even more time to determine which lures, colours, depths, etc. work best, which is why I am reluctant to give detailed information about where I catch my fish. Too often have I done this (on other lakes) only to find the lake packed with new boats in the following weeks.

That having been said, I encourage all boaters to get out on the water and use your skills to catch these elusive fish. If you manage to find an active school, you will have the best time of your life. I guarantee it.

I look forward to seeing you on the water, Mike.

Sincerely,

Captain Hank

Mike · **Posted:** Mon Nov 10, 2003 9:48 am

Baffish,

Your are correct. I did try and stress this in my post (see quote below). Sorry if I didn't make that point clear.

Quote:

NOTE: The possession numbers would still have to be on a per day limit. (i.e.: in transport we could only keep a day limit of fish from the weekend). Just using these numbers as an example.

So keeping 12 fish between 4 guys (assuming the fish are all over the slot) for a weekend would be illegal. Hence the quote above. We would have only been able to keep 4 for the weekend (1 each).

Cheers,

Mike

YO · **Posted:** Mon Nov 10, 2003 3:26 pm

Hey Mike, in theory 4 guys can keep 12 fish over the slot in a 3 day weekend. A few things need to happen to be legal though. You can only possess 1 walleye over 25" on any given day. So if you catch one and eat it on the same day, you're perfectly legal. If you catch one the next day and give it to your aunt who live nearby, you're perfectly legal to catch and keep another fish on day 3. 4 guys, three days, 12 fish can be kept as long as no one has more than two fish in possession at any time on any 1 day. Still, no need to keep more than one over the slot anyways. I imagine that most groups obey the limits but there are probably a large number of groups that will take home two or three daily limits without a second thought. What are the penalties for this?

Ken & Jo · **Joined:** Mon Oct 07, 2002 7:43 am **Posts:** 294

Check out this link

http://www.ontariofishing.net/news.shtml

I noticed a few weeks ago that the couple with 113 walleye over the limit actually made the TV news! Hopefully that will bring more awareness and deterrence to those unscrupulous enough to keep that many fish if their names are going to be broadcast all over the media!

Ken

bear · **Posted:** Mon Nov 10, 2003 4:56 pm

We got stopped at the border coming back to the US.One of the cars carrying 4 guys,Of a group of 12,broke down and we had to get one of the guys back to catch a plane.Not a big deal except we had all the fish,for everyone.We ended up with 3 fish over the one day limit.They took all the fish and fined us $525..I am ok with the whole deal,except they kept us at the border for 5 hours.I don`t know why.We were coming back from a week in Quebec.We still go every year,and I am not bitter about paying the fine.Bad planning on our part
Bear

Ken & Jo · **Joined:** Mon Oct 07, 2002 7:43 am **Posts:** 294

bear wrote:

We got stopped at the border coming back to the US.One of the cars carrying 4 guys,Of a group of 12,broke down and we had to get one of the guys back to catch a plane.Not a big deal except we had all the fish,for everyone.We ended up with 3 fish over the one day limit.They took all the fish and fined us $525..I am ok with the whole deal,except they kept us at the border for 5 hours.I don`t know why.We were coming back from a week in Quebec.We still go every year,and I am not bitter about paying the fine.Bad planning on our part
Bear

That's a bummer Bear. That's when you should have had a roadside fish fry before crossing the border.

I hope your buddies chipped in for the fine.

Ken

HOME	Bait&Tackle	Bed&Breakfast	Boat Rentals	Campgrounds	Contact Us
Cottage Rentals	Guides/Fishing Charters	Hotels/Motels	Hunting Supplies	Ice Huts/Ice Guides	Marinas
Outfitters	QUINTE FISHING SERIES	Resorts	Tourism	Trailer Parks	Launches

Quinte Fishing

Fishing Report Oct.31-Nov.1 - page 3

Who is online