|
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | I was just reading the short thread in the Tournament Forum about the cancellation of the Can-Am event. Too bad, the trash talking could have been fun.
I'm wondering if I'm correctly interpreting Steve's post about taking pictures of Canadian fish less than 54". Does the Canadian MNR really consider it illegal to take a picture of a fish less than the legal limit? The way I'm understanding Steve's post is you can measure a fish, but taking a picture represents restraint and thus is illegal.
If that is true, there must be many, many, many anglers breaking the law everyday on lakes like Eagle, Wabigoon, LOTW, out east, and on and on. Don't most guides let their clients get a picture of sub-legal fish?
I'm not trying to be a smart guy, but am interested in some opinions. Does the MNR ever enforce this with recreational anglers and guides? Or do they do they just use it to limit tournament fishing?
Kevin | |
| | |
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The communications I have seen seem to indicate it's not acceptable for anyone to restrain a sublegal fish for pictures; the wording seems to indicate an image violates the 'immediate release' requirement of any sublegal fish in Ontario. There wasn't any mention of this law being specific only to competitive anglers. The question does need to be answered, especially in the case of a Guide or Lodge encouraging pictures of sublegal fish. I've asked James to let me know what he finds out. | |
| | |
| This issue for me is a real knife in my side. Lake of the Woods is my home water. There are many pictures, and Video's featuring well known Anglers who have fished this waters and taken pictures of sub legal fish. This of course end up in Videos and Magazines in Canada and the U.S. Not to mention the thousands of others that have done so as well with the pictures splashed all over the net and lodges.
The MNR has all the evidence that it needs to charge people for breaking the regulation and yet it does not. As I have mentioned in a previous post about this same subject, this regulation is on the books so that they can use it when they feel there truly is a need. When I talked to the Mnr last year, they told me that to their knowlege, no one had ever been charged. If they used all the picture and video and where out there enforcing this, it would effectively kill muskie fishing and the tourism that goes along with it in Ontario.
Check out the following link from just one randomly chosen web site. There are pictures of many sub legal muskies from Eagle lake. This lake does have a 54 inch size limit. Call the police, send in the Ministry!! Just kidding but you get the point.
http://www.vermilionbaylodge.com/muskie-pictures.html
I now know why they have this regulation. It is to kill tournaments!!!
I am going to be going into the process of fighting this regulation. Petitions, courts, whatever it takes. To me possession should mean "Intent to keep" That is the fish is in a live-well, on a stringer, cooler, or handled in such a way that it can't be successfully released.
Stay tuned
Cory | |
| | |
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | It was researched, Mike, and the folks in Kenora were given the green light; I have the emails in response to the exact question; I asked it repeatedly in the early going. It appears from the communications I have a shift occurred sometime in the last few weeks from, "We will be there to monitor the event, and we ask that a rule be implemented there are to be NO vertical holds" to "No images allowed. Run the event, it's OK to measure the fish, but do not take pictures." In all communications I was sent, there was no mention of sublegal fish not counting, just that they could not be verified by images 'as images indicate restraint of the fish'.
Bottom line is this is an issue between Tourism and Resources, and it seems they are very willing to negotiate this winter to find a resolution. Cory might not be far off the right track, one email indicates the changes needed in verbiage as to what constitutes possession might need to be written into the law. That's not a negative in any way, just a reasonable response to the question if one wants a long term solution. I have a little experience with that sort of thing, and if Norm, Mike, and I hadn't been #*^@ed 'indignant', the limit on Pelican would still be 40" or less.
Interestingly, several states in the US have similar wording for slot and sublegal fish. Most are designed to protect walleyes, not muskies, but that was a potential issue with AIM at one event this year.
| |
| | |
Posts: 221
| Too bad. ...Now I have to wait a year to kick some US butt!!
A real downside to this tournament being cancelled is that Kenora will not have the extra business at a time of year, and in it's history, that it really needs it.
Places like the Super 8 and Caseys restaurant will be empty for that weekend instead of packed.
I know some of you are against tournaments in Canada. But some towns need events like this.
...To the Ministry if any of you are reading this. How dare you.
Darcy Cox | |
| | |
Posts: 720
| Darcy,
I agree this is a real let down. I manage to spend about 4 to 6 weeks up there a summer and have made some really good friends. Most folks are just making it. As a resident do you think there needs to be a bigger push on behave of the resorts and lodge owners? Or are they doing everything they can.
One more question for you Darcy? How well organizied are they? | |
| | |
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Steve, you are correct it took persistence and attention to detail to get that 50” size limit passed on Pelican. One point being argued was that the higher size limit would make it illegal for people to take pictures of sub legal fish. No basis for this, but the anti’s locked onto it and tried to make it a point with the masses, even though there was no precedence for it. As a result I got the WDNR involved and suggested some changes to the Regulation booklet. Prior to the that work ’07-’08 and earlier the C&R section of the book read as follows:
Catch and Release: It will grow on you!
Fish you wish to release, and fish not meeting the legal length limit, should be handled carefully with wet hands and played as little as possible. When fish are deeply-hooked, cut the line as closely to the hook as possible and let the fish go. Attention Musky Anglers! It is recommended that you use a quick set rig when fishing for muskies with live bait.
In ’08-’09 the wording was changed to the following, THANK GOD we have GOOD people at the WDNR that are willing to listen to others and make changes as necessary to make the sport better and better:
Catch and Release: It will grow on you!
Fish you wish to release, and fish not meeting the legal length limit, should be played as little as possible and handled carefully with wet hands. The fish should not be held out of the water longer than necessary to remove hooks, take a photograph, or measure the fish. If live release is intended, a quick set rig should be employed, where the hook is set immediately upon pickup, to prevent deeply hooked fish. Deep-hooked fish, if meeting the legal limit, should be kept as studies have shown that leaving the hook in the gullet or gut and cutting the leader regularly kills the fish. If the fish does not meet the legal length limit it must be let go after cutting the line or leader as close to the hook as possible.
They did a couple of things with that, they added the wording to allow a photograph and measurement, and they clarified the deep hooked issue. Some may not like the encouragement to keep the deeply hooked fish, but that’s better than someone going though life thinking that as long as they cut the leader and release the fish they can just keep on fishing, and not count them as part of the daily bag limit.
I guess the bottom line is in WI they clarified the regs to specifically allow taking a picture of the fish, there by encouraging Catch and Release in an attempt to move away from the entire if it’s legal it’s ok to kill it, and taking a picture is the same as killing it.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
Posts: 1430
Location: Eastern Ontario | Taking pictures of sub legal muskies is compared to jaywalking how often are you ticketed for crossing the street away from a crosswalk?
I think tournaments deal more with possession then anything else. And how would you explain winning a tournament catching sub legal fish? It's like getting rewarded for breaking the law no mater how minor it is.
Stupid question here, in bass and walleye tournaments do they count slot and sub legal fish?
I personally think they should fine the picture taking of all out of season fish and should change the laws to allow pictures of sub legal and slot fish with minimum handling. No mater how they do it there will always be grey areas. But I just can't see profiting from catching sub legals no mater where and what fish it is.
Edited by Trophymuskie 9/12/2009 8:44 AM
| |
| | |
| yes, in fact they do.
http://www.aimfishing.com/
the AIM walleye tournaments use a CRR (pic on a bumpboard, length-to-weight formula determines the "weight" of the fish) format and one of things this allows them to do is hold tournaments on waters with high limits or large slots that possession tournaments have avoided for that reason.
the use of digital photo verification of tournament fish is still a new enough paradigm that the laws and law enforcers and even some tournament organizers haven't caught up to it yet.
i think the argument that you shouldn't profit from "sub-legal" fish is built on the entirely false premise that there is any difference in modern muskie fishing that the term "legal" means anything. since most all fish are quickly released anyway, the distinction between legal and sub-legal fish is almost entirely semantic.
it's also somewhat ironic to hear this coming from a big name guide who profits from catching sub-legal fish all the time.
if someone wants to argue that no one should profit from catching a muskie at all, okay, someone can make that argument but that's an entirely different line of thought that would include a lot more than just tournament fishing. heck, it'd include a lot more than just fishing as private individuals make money from natural resources all the time: forests, coal, oil, on and on and on...
no responsible muskie anglers keep fish anyway, and immediate release format tournaments treat fish exactly the same non-tourney fishermen who catch, photo, and release their muskies.
it would be good for the laws to clarify the grey area, yes. it's apparently too much to ask that everyone just use common sense in recognizing that CRR formats are fish-friendly instead of rigidly enforcing an out-of-date law.
| |
| | |
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | lambeau - 9/12/2009 9:03 AM
yes, in fact they do.
http://www.aimfishing.com/
the AIM walleye tournaments use a CRR (pic on a bumpboard, standard length-to-weight formula determines the "weight" of the fish ) format and one of things this allows them to do is hold tournaments on waters with high limits or large slots that possession tournaments have avoided for that reason.
the use of digital photo verification of tournament fish is still a new enough paradigm that the laws and law enforcers and even some tournament organizers haven't caught up to it yet.
i think the argument that you shouldn't profit from "sub-legal" fish is built on the entirely false premise that there is any difference in modern muskie fishing that the term "legal" means anything. since most all fish are quickly released anyway, the distinction between legal and sub-legal fish is almost entirely semantic.
it's also somewhat ironic to hear this coming from a big name guide who profits from catching sub-legal fish all the time.
if someone wants to argue that no one should profit from catching a muskie at all, okay, someone can make that argument but that's an entirely different line of thought that would include a lot more than just tournament fishing. heck, it'd include a lot more than just fishing as private individuals make money from natural resources all the time: forests, coal, oil, on and on and on...
no responsible muskie anglers keep fish anyway, and immediate release format tournaments treat fish exactly the same non-tourney fishermen who catch, photo, and release their muskies.
it would be good for the laws to clarify the grey area, yes. it's apparently too much to ask that everyone just use common sense in recognizing that CRR formats are fish-friendly instead of rigidly enforcing an out-of-date law.
Oh sure, Mike, logical and reasonable thinking. No fun arguments in that.
Kevin
Packers 31
Bears 14 | |
| | |
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | In fact, the Kevin Worrall Memorial uses a measure and release format that allows measuring all tournament legal fish, which is 34", despite a 50" HARVEST limit. The answer in this case is:
Muskies are obviously perfectly legal to catch and release on Pelican up to 50". The fish is only legal to HARVEST if over 50". Legal to catch photo and release, not legal to keep, the very essence of the CPR philosophy, and when taken a step further...ALL muskies on trophy waters should be released. | |
| | |
Posts: 240
| Richard,
Are you not a Guide? Do you not profit from taking clients out and rewarding them by putting them on fish and giving them a picture to take home? I really don't see the diffrence. You collect a large amount of money over an expanded time, where in a tournament, it is one big paycheck. So What
Cory | |
| | |
Location: SE Wisconsin | I'm not sure I entirely understand. . . Why would it be illegal to take a picture of a musky just because it's not the legal length of 54"? That's probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. | |
| | |
Location: SE Wisconsin | I see no implication of an angler keeping a fish by taking a photo before the release. The fish is landed in a net, so it's constrained. . . Is it illegal to net fish under 54" in Ontario, too? | |
| | |
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sam,
Those are points of interpretation the Ministry needs to look into if they intend to use the current law to limit competitive angling in Ontario, but not enforce the law in any other context. I would bet they will address this over winter, and we'll find out what the final disposition may be once the folks from Kenora, Tourism, and the MNR have a chance to sit down and look at options. | |
| | |
Posts: 1430
Location: Eastern Ontario | Cory Toker - 9/14/2009 11:28 AM
Richard,
Are you not a Guide? Do you not profit from taking clients out and rewarding them by putting them on fish and giving them a picture to take home? I really don't see the diffrence. You collect a large amount of money over an expanded time, where in a tournament, it is one big paycheck. So What
Cory
Cory I am a guiding service, I'm not selling photograph. I get paid the same if we catch fish or not, I get paid the same if we catch 4 fish or 1, I get paid the same if we get a 54 or not. Well maybe the tip will be better but thats not a gimme, I've goten some big tips for great service and received none for 54+ legal fish.
Another aspect is I fish in my local waters and that allows me to care more for the fish then the majority of out of state anglers going after a huge payout and may never comeback ever.
You can never compare guiding to tournaments its like comparing apples to oranges. | |
| | |
Posts: 1430
Location: Eastern Ontario | Sam the law states that all sub legal fish must be immidaitely released, look it up in the dictionary I'm sure it means ASAP as in no pictures no inboard measurements etc etc. You may argue the measurement to see if it is legal but I don't think it will work with any fish under 50.
Hey with a conservation license you can take pictures of fish you have to release so there definitely is a grey area in there. | |
| | |
| Everything you said except for the 'caring for the fish' I don't disagree with. I'd say one might be careful who one claims doesn't care for the fish. Some of the leading conservationists in the world fish competitively. | |
| | |
Posts: 1430
Location: Eastern Ontario | Careful - 9/16/2009 7:24 PM
Everything you said except for the 'caring for the fish' I don't disagree with. I'd say one might be careful who one claims doesn't care for the fish. Some of the leading conservationists in the world fish competitively.
I'm not puting everyone in that class, it only takes a few to make a difference. It's like the out of state guide around here who tries to force his clients to take fish home. I sure hope he's respecting our 54 inch limit. | |
| | |
Posts: 6
| I think that after rewriting the law to allow for catch, photo, measure, and release the MNR and others should start an all out blitz educating the general public about proper handling. Our musky club regularly circulates articles on this subject and discus it in meetings but the general public have no idea. I wouldn't even be averse to the MNR requiring that we use an MNR approved bump board so that musky aren't thrown on the carpet of some boat and measured with some makeshift measuring device. I'm with Cory...it's time to get a petition or something going. | |
| | |
Posts: 468
Location: Not where I wanna be! | Strange ruling.... I will take a pic of every muskie I catch...... simple
| |
| | |
Posts: 2331
Location: SE, WI. | Well; Hopefully Ontario does'nt look at all the sublegal fish posted in the BIG FISH forum ON Muskie FIRST AND THROW US ALL IN JAIL. Ontario will loose alot business, including from all of the people locked up . What a Joke!!! :-( SAD! Oh; By the way; I just watched 2 water and woods episodes with a guide from Quebec holding up all kinds of 39" - 48" fish for the camera! Oh; By the way, the fish picture to your left was estimated at 43lbs and 52 3/4" Sorry, I measured it to see if it was 54". It came up short...SORRY!
Edited by jdsplasher 9/19/2009 7:45 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 468
Location: Not where I wanna be! | Picture first, measure second
 | |
| | |
Posts: 419
Location: Appleton, WI | Unfortunately this looks like the way the sport is going. I think everyone has the best interest for catch and release, and we have gone leaps and bounds on what it use to be. So with that said, protecting a resource to the point of being ridiculous is a tragedy in itself. I remember some good guys from England that told me how crazy some guys in Europe were on the catch and release of carp. The sport had gotten so crazy that guys were wearing latex gloves and applying antiseptics to the hook wound on the fish.
Like anything in life, one extreme to another is never a good thing. Balance is crucial for everything to be alright.
That rule pretty much excludes 99% of the fish in the system to being photographed (54" size limit). With how the economy is, gas prices and fishing pressure. Let's pound another nail in the coffin for the resorts and sportfishing. Life's too short to get upset about petty things...(Whew, that's what I tell myself when I read such stuff).
Hope common sense prevails on this one!!! | |
| |
|
Taking Pictures of Sub-legal Canadian Fish