Quinte Fishing

he link to the story appearing in todays Belleville Intelligencer.
http://www.intelligencer.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentID=64967&catname=Local%20News

Here is the entire text cut and pasted from the newspaper website

Information breakdown hurting walleye research


By Ben Medd

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 10:00

Local News - A communications breakdown between the province and area Mohawks is preventing researchers from gathering critical information on the state of the Bay of Quinte walleye fishery.

No information regarding the number of walleye being caught in native gill nets, nor by spear fishers in local rivers is being shared between Ministry of Natural Resources staff and the Tyendinaga Mohawk band council.

Both sides are blaming each other for the shutdown in the sharing of walleye fishing information.

Tyendinaga Mohawk Chief R. Donald Maracle said his band had been working hand-in-hand with the Ministry of Natural Resources until the province backed out of discussions on the broader issue of Mohawk walleye fishing.

“There really has been very little discussion with the province since the province moved away from the negotiating table a few years ago. A judge had a table set up to try and resolve the conflict over our community fishing and the province left the table,” Maracle said. “There was a joint monitoring process in the off-reserve waters a few years ago with the Ministry of Natural Resources and that agreement has not been renewed since 2000. They did not sign another contract with us to have joint monitoring.”

Maracle said while there are Mohawk game wardens employed on the reserve to monitor native fish harvests, the province is not currently involved in the process.

This was not always the case. Jim Hoyle, an assessment biologist, with the MNR’s Lake Ontario Management Unit, said the ministry had previously relied on fishing data provided by the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte in its assessment of the fishery.

“Up until a couple of years ago we had a fairly good breakdown of the pressures from the various fisheries and how much they were taking,” Hoyle said. “The last couple of years though, we don’t have that kind of detailed information. The native fishery, we don’t have detailed records of that.”

The missing information is preventing ministry officials from being able to see the impact spear and net fishing has on walleye in the bay, Barry Radford, a communications specialist with the MNR told The Intelligencer.

“The First Nations provided us, until about two years ago, with information on their estimate of catches by the native population. And then, they just ceased to provide that,” he said. “We would love to have that information. But, we do talk with them and try to make contact, and like I said, we would love to have that information. It’s a link that helps us complete that picture about the walleye population.”

While both Maracle and MNR officials agree no information on the native fishery is currently being shared, Radford said efforts have been made to improve communications between the province and the Bay of Quinte Mohawks.

“I think what we are trying to do is build some bridges with that (Mohawk) community and one of those bridges would be through the new Bay of Quinte Fisheries Advisory Committee,” Radford said. “I believe that I attended the last meeting of that committee and they have been trying to establish those lines of communication themselves. It’s an ongoing process of trying to connect and share information. If we could get those things rolling, that would be great.”

Radford said he hopes the MNR and the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte will be able to come to an agreement similar to one recently reached with the Nipissing First Nations.

It was one week ago that the First Nations in Nipissing and the province arrived at a deal which would see natives self-regulating their walleye fishery, while working closely with the province to restore dwindling walleye numbers in Lake Nipissing.

But, Maracle said the local First Nations already monitor their own fishing and also do their part to increase the walleye population.

“For years, the Mohawk people have been milking the fish and putting the spawn and eggs back into the river ... and there is a community member that has been hatching some of the fry and putting them back into the bay for the past two years,” the chief said. “We published a council resolution that there is to be no nets in the river or the mouth of the river during the spawning season and that allows the fish to come up the river to spawn. And there are regulations on the amount that people can catch under the band’s bylaw.”

When asked what the limits are on the number of fish members of the band could take and what the repercussions are for those who violated the bylaw, Maracle admitted the bylaw is not actually being enforced.

“The band’s bylaw has never been rescinded, but the band’s bylaw has sort of been rendered inoperative because the (Supreme Court decision) Sparrow case allows sustenance hunting and fishing and so it is really up to each individual to determine what they require for their own sustenance,” he said, after being asked for a copy of the bylaw.

The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte bylaw was not provided to The Intelligencer.

The Lake Nipissing agreement outlines a defined set rules, which include a month-long freeze on gill netting beginning this week and stricter controls on the use of gill nets. Any member of the Nipissing First Nations using nets will have to register with their band, mark and identify their nets for monitoring by provincial inspectors and report their catches for MNR records.

The issue of native gill netting sparked concern among provincial officials and outrage from Chief Maracle last May following the release of an MNR report.

“Our assessment of the future status of the walleye population has two major areas of uncertainty: the magnitude of the aboriginal gill-net fishery, and future levels of walleye recruitment. Both sources of uncertainty have a large influence on the population, and neither is easy to predict,” the report stated. “Surveillance by conservation officers suggested that the aboriginal gill-net harvest in the most recent years may have been the largest source of mortality.”

The Lake Ontario Management Unit in Picton estimated the number of walleye being taken in native gill nets from the Bay of Quinte as being between 50,000 and 200,000 kilograms in 1999, up substantially from the 1992-96 estimates of 12,800 kg a year.

MNR officials later said the 1999 estimates prompted them to impose a slot limit of between 19 and 25 inches on recreational fishing of walleye in 2002 to protect the fishery.

Maracle has dismissed these numbers as being far from fact and said he estimates the impact the Bay of Quinte Mohawks have on the local walleye stocks as being closer to 1992 MNR estimates which listed the natives as accounting for 3 per cent of the total number of walleye taken from the bay.

“We have reports and figures on what we believe our people are taking and it is nowhere near the amount that has been published by the Ministry of Natural Resources and ours is by direct observation. The amount our people take from the fishery is very insignificant,” the chief said. “I think one part of the culture is simply blind to how much they take for themselves. There needs to be some regulation put on the biggest user and it is not the aboriginal population. We have questioned constantly at the negotiating table with the MNR, what regulation is the government of Ontario going to impose upon the people it licenses?”

Radford said he hopes the province and the Bay of Quinte Mohawks will soon return to the bargaining table in an effort to work out a compromise similar to that which was reached surrounding the Lake Nipissing fishery.

“It is certainly one that is working (Nipissing) and if we could achieve successes like that things would move a lot better,” he said.

As for now, Hoyle said the Bay of Quinte’s walleye population has remained stable at about 400,000 fish for the past two years. While the number is substantially lower than the bay fishery’s peak of an estimated 1.3 million in the 1980’s, he said the population should remain balanced for the immediate future.

“It declined fairly steadily from the mid 1990s until a couple of years ago ... and seems to have leveled off at the 400,000 mark,” Hoyle said. “One of the biggest factors in the walleye’s decline would be a decrease in young fish which I suggest would be somehow linked to the changes in the bay since the arrival of zebra mussels.”

While Hoyle said it may be possible to hold the walleye to their current numbers, it may not be possible to ever return to the numbers witnessed in the eighties.

“The environment in the Bay of Quinte has changed and the current level is now in tune with that environment. So, I guess you would have to make a big change in the environment to cause the walleye to go up or down again,” he surmised.

Anglers fishing open water last year caught more than double the amount of fish than in 2003 and just under 35,000 walleye are believed to have been taken home by the anglers.

Of those fish caught, roughly 50 per cent of the walleye were two-year-olds from the 2001 hatch. It is these younger fish, ranging up to four-years-old, which seem to make up the bulk of the Bay of Quinte’s walleye stock. Only a handful of fish included in the MNR report for 2003 were older than five-years-old, with the eldest walleye being estimated at the age of 15.

Surveys done in the Kingston area show a more mature face of Lake Ontario walleye, with the majority of fish surveyed being between the ages of nine and 16, including one 20-year-old specimen.

_________________
Dan Elliot - A bad day on Quinte is better than a good day at work !!!
http://www.quintefishing.com

Reading about this very old problem makes me wonder aloud, when the powers that be will accept some simple solution from the public....instead of further alienating and complicating the region.

Sooner or later...when and if they want to get serious.....I will welcome hearing some discussion that goes beyond the scope of media declarations of "non talk". Until then, there remains no trust by either side and there will be no accountability.....without this simple element ...slowly put into place. This is not the area where a conventional career beaurocrat can succeed...... I want a relationship and relations within BOQ that works....we had it...and I want to see it back...somehow...within my lifetime (and no I am not being sarcastic about this statement).

I am not griping, I just think there are better ways to get and achieve results. PS I still pay a lot of taxes there

Respectfully
Don Stokes

The part that bother's me the most is when the band chief takes a shot at us angler’s with respect to the amount of fish we harvest. First we have to use a rod/hook not a spear or gill net. 2nd we pay back into the fishery, but lastly (definitely not least, actually what bothers me the most!!! )
WE DON'T HARVEST THE FISH WHILE THEIR TRYING TO REPRODUCE!!

And if the MNR estimates that they Indians, are taking:" between 50,000 and 200,000 kilograms in 1999" say ave of 5lbs per fish = 50,000 walleye at the high end and 10,000 at the low end of the MNR est.

"Anglers fishing open water last year caught more than double the amount of fish than in 2003 and just under 35,000 walleye are believed to have been taken home by the anglers." - Oh yes, we pay money for this! Money that goes toward the bay and it's conservation.

He complains about the licensed angler taking too many fish? They take as much if not more except they don't pay a damn cent and oh yes, they kill the Walleye when their spawning

Hard to have any empathy toward their (Mohawks) position! Actually, I have none!

Good fishing to all law abiding/Conservation respecting People
CC Lad!

Guest,

You can't expect results by rehashing old arguments. It's obvious you don't respect the Mohawks position, nor will you ever understand it. The Mohawks have paid huge with the loss of land base. Their lands as part of the Six Nations Confederacy extended to the French River, along the Ottawa River and back into to homelands in Upper New York State. And historically, Mohawks never overfished an area. However, since the province of Ontario has forced the Mohawks to fish within an extremely small area (BOQ), more pressure is being put on the resource as more recreational fishermen come to the Bay of Quinte to fish. The Mohawks have been fishing in this area for over a thousand years. As for law abiding, I think our guest needs to read the Constitution of Canada, section 35 to be exact. Fishing is not a sport to the Mohawks, it is a mean of food, and for some a menial income. As for conservation, as I said, the Mohawks have been fishing the Bay of Quinte area for over a thousand years. You make it sound like every Mohawk has a gill net in the BOQ, which is simply not the case. 95% of the Mohawks are decent respectful, and "law-abiding conservation minded" people. One must remember, it was Ontario that walked away from the discussion table, not the Mohawks. Has our guest ever talked to a Mohawk?

So does that mean that evry Mohawk is here from the french on down expoiting the fish. How does this also explain the spearing in the Napanee river for fun and leaving the fish on the shore for waste. And by the way, the last time I saw walleye it was pushing $19 / lb. Sweet

Well, I'm not going to get into a history debate, let's just say I had no personnel bearing on who was to own what in terms of land, settled by our fore father's. Let's just say that this is the year 2004 and the resources are for ALL people to share and manage. You wrote: "Fishing is not a sport to the Mohawks, it is a mean of food, and for some a menial income." Please check the constitution and would you please paraphrase the part where it states the Mohawk people may fish the BOQ for a means of personnel prophet!

Further more, do you really think it's healthy to personally consume ton's of anything out of the BOQ water shed? Funny our government say's we can only safely eat a couple meals a month. So if it's such a serious health risk, what does one do with a thousand lbs. or so of toxic fish? Feed it to their wife’s and children every day over the course of a year? Or do they say sell it, make them selves a prophet and F&*K every one else - including their much cherished natural resource? I do not include all Mohawks in this statement, as I'm sure their are some who simply take for their families, period. As the other post in this thread stated, it's the barrels full of dead wasted fish, the hundreds of Walleye's left lying on a shore to rot. All the dead Walleye that were trying to spawn, floating about the bay with spear cuts in them! Garbage dumpster’s full of dead Walleye, un fillited.


Year after year these selfish, self serving display’s of ignorance can be witnessed in various places in and around the BOQ region. This is not the reason behind your constitutional right to fish when ever you want.
**** If it's only a minority abusing their right’s, than why not do something about it yourselves, I can't recall reading about any arrests or fines being given out by the Mohawk police force – It’s only been going on as long as I can remember. Why not help clean up a very tarnished image of the Mohawk people?

PS a thousand years ago I bet the fishing was good, hell I'll even bet was great in 1904! This is now, 2004. Times change, things change! It would benefit us all to responsibly work together and conserve our natural resources. My way or the highway doesn't work.
Take a species while it copulates year after year and will become history. Try and think of the future, maybe your childrens grand children might like to fish some day!

CC Lad.

Why do they do it year after year? Why are walleyes slaughtered year after year?

Why?

So they can look at the non-natives, the guys looking on in disgust, and they can say "so what, we're allowed, in your face".

Anglers take too many fish? Get real. There are limits. Do the natives have any limits? Nope.

PS How do you live release a speared fish.

Close to the land? As one with nature? Respecting the earth? Yeah......Right. Just like that band in Quebec shooting endangered caribou to "make a point". The bands in Alberta shooting bear year round to sell the gallbladders to the Chinese.

Save that rhetorical arguement for your discussions with the Feds.

I am trying really hard not to agreed with all the bad points against the natives but it is really hard to see the native side of things.

We all know in life that bad things makes good news and this is why you always here about the bad things. I would like to see the natives publish the good things there are doing for the bay of Quinte. What kind of management and enforcement things they are doing to help prevent the bad things that are so widely published in the news. By bad things are mean by excessive walleye harvest through gill nets and spearing, killing walleye and simply allowing them to spoil, etc.

I really can't see why both sides can't sit down and works thing out. Both the natives and MNR have issues they got to get past if this is ever going to be solved. In my mind the whole thing is pretty childish.

Cheers,

Mike

_________________
Wish I wasn't here...Rather be fishing if you know what I mean

Walleye were wiped ouy of the bay in the 50,s and 60,s by licensed commercial fishing. Now the Mohawk take the fish.
The only reason commercial fishing has stopped is because no one will buy the fish. They,re too polluted!
If the fish were edible, there would still be a commercial fishery today
which would likely take at least as many fish as the Mohawks do.

People.

Focus your energies, native and non, on habitat restoration instead of this endless bickering and there will be plenty of fish for all.

It is good to see you back Wulffy. The West Coast of Canada if I recall correctly?

1) While your points are logical and understood, there is in fact commercial fishing on BOQ. Gill nets and a small amount of live release gear is deployed, by both the licenced and unlicenced sectors. Gill nets remain a 95% salvageable point, under the right guidance, and can be effectively, amicabley removed (there would be a miniscule amount left that would or could be pulled with the right system, supports, put into place). It requires leadership and cash to make this work, with some of us being extremely confident in the execution of this ideal, under the right conditions. The official target of the gill nets is carp, etc., but the reality is much different. PS I am quite comfortable with discussing net placement for particular species, given that shoal spawners, etc. are an incidental pick-up, combined with the intentional placement of gill nets by the unlicensed sector. All gill nets need to be removed, and have either live impoundment gear, or nothing at all (a few commercial payouts can reap huge public relations, fishing stock dividends)

2) Regarding the consumption of walleye, they are ate.....a whole lot are actually consumed; mainly larger females. Smaller males, females are the better table fare, but a substantial seasonal unlicensed harvest continues to plague the area. They are bought, sold and occasionally bartered.

I do respect your opinion and insite from a different part of Canada, but the playing field/context is very different on the above mentioned points. DFO is a much different "kettle of fish" to contend with, and the politics is there, but exists in a different format.

Coincidentally, and I bet you are well aware, the 1993 ?/yr Sparrow decision came from BC and has twisted relations across the country, into an obomination that is respected by neither native nor non-native. When they will actually get judges that have an understanding of the consequences of their actions on fish and wildlife stocks combined with understanding the context of treatys in a modern world, is beyond poor old ODG.

I am glad to see you posting and encourage you and others to continue.

ODG

It is good to see you back Wulffy. The West Coast of Canada if I recall correctly?

1) While your points are logical and understood, there is in fact commercial fishing on BOQ. Gill nets and a small amount of live release gear is deployed, by both the licenced and unlicenced sectors. Gill nets remain a 95% salvageable point, under the right guidance, and can be effectively, amicabley removed (there would be a miniscule amount left that would or could be pulled with the right system, supports, put into place). It requires leadership and cash to make this work, with some of us being extremely confident in the execution of this ideal, under the right conditions. The official target of the gill nets is carp, etc., but the reality is much different. PS I am quite comfortable with discussing net placement for particular species, given that shoal spawners, etc. are an incidental pick-up, combined with the intentional placement of gill nets by the unlicensed sector. All gill nets need to be removed, and have either live impoundment gear, or nothing at all (a few commercial payouts can reap huge public relations, fishing stock dividends)

2) Regarding the consumption of walleye, they are ate.....a whole lot are actually consumed; mainly larger females. Smaller males, females are the better table fare, but a substantial seasonal unlicensed harvest continues to plague the area. They are bought, sold and occasionally bartered.
* I understand that the average female BOQ walleye has 10,000-20,000 eggs per pd. of adult weight. 1/2-1% actually hatch, with much fewer making it to an age where they can reproduce. Nature in its purest form is one thing, but man is quite another (and no I am not an anti.....nor am I PETA "People Eating Tastey Animals"). I believe in a selective harvest of many things.

I do respect your opinion and insite from a different part of Canada, but the playing field/context is very different on the above mentioned points. DFO is a much different "kettle of fish" to contend with, and the politics is there, but exists in a different format.

Coincidentally, and I bet you are well aware, the 1993 ?/yr Sparrow decision came from BC and has twisted relations across the country, into an obomination that is respected by neither native nor non-native. When they will actually get judges that have an understanding of the consequences of their actions on fish and wildlife stocks combined with understanding the context of treatys in a modern world, is beyond poor old ODG.

I am glad to see you posting and encourage you and others to continue.

ODG