|
|
Posts: 367
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | North of 8 - 1/28/2025 3:40 PM
I don't know, I was told that the ban on night fishing on Eagle was not put in place to help fishery but because lodges were tired of going out to find lost anglers. The improved fishery angle was to sell it.
Safety was side benefit from the night ban which was one of a number of measures implemented to improve declining walleye populations given everyone was hitting the same hot reefs at dusk and pounding spots - which made sense for anglers in those low tech days.
There are lots of regs that are specifically requested by lodges that are put in place if determined by OMNR / DNR if deemed meritous. Frankly a ban on FFS for muskies could be one of them if a plea was made for conservation reasons by lodges.
Edited by Angling Oracle 1/28/2025 4:24 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 626
Location: Bloomington, MN | The camps, if willing to possibly lose business can ban it themselves. Cliff, North and Stork, as with a few others are the only ones on the lake. Some camps prohibit marijuana use that is permitted in Canada. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 565
Location: WI | Angling Oracle - 1/28/2025 11:50 AM
You do realize that the spring bear hunt was entirely cancelled (OR BANNED) a decade or two ago in NW Ontario entirely by folks in Toronto that probably have never been to NW Ontario, affecting hundreds of jobs, risking lives, property etc? Those lodges didn't agree on a ban for that, and whatever objections they had ultimately meant nothing. Animal rights folks got that done. Switched with new government or two, but not quickly.
I feel like this is a good example of why one shouldn’t always turn to elected officials or bureaucracies to come to the rescue. Those with opposing views have voices too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1311
| As muskie fishermen, our focus should be on muskie, not something that would impact others, as we don't need to draw the ire of people who fish for other stuff. We've been down that road. And if done correctly, we may be able to show a path for other angler groups who may start to feel the same way. Start with something that may be isn't the full answer, but may still have some impact. As the reality of depleted populations starts to percolate, momentum from others can help push more effective solutions. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 367
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | raftman - 1/28/2025 4:39 PM
Angling Oracle - 1/28/2025 11:50 AM
You do realize that the spring bear hunt was entirely cancelled (OR BANNED) a decade or two ago in NW Ontario entirely by folks in Toronto that probably have never been to NW Ontario, affecting hundreds of jobs, risking lives, property etc? Those lodges didn't agree on a ban for that, and whatever objections they had ultimately meant nothing. Animal rights folks got that done. Switched with new government or two, but not quickly.
I feel like this is a good example of why one shouldn’t always turn to elected officials or bureaucracies to come to the rescue. Those with opposing views have voices too.
Can agree with you on that, although we may disagree on other things.
Good read here on how it happened and reversed: https://oodmag.com/how-the-spring-bear-hunt-was-lost-and-won/
"The hunt’s cancellation was a wake-up call for the outdoors community. That fateful decision showed that our traditions could be upended. It demonstrated that even friendly governments could buckle under the right amount of pressure. It proved that a dedicated, well-funded campaign based on ill-informed and emotional anti-hunting sentiments could topple sound, science-based policy. Most important of all, it taught us that it is far easier to keep our traditions than to win them back after they have been taken away. "
We were prepared here in Manitoba and stopped them when they tried the same thing. There are constantly fish/wildlife issues to be concerned about and frankly I've been critiquing my musky partner's press (provincially and nationally) with regards to some serious land use issues here (similar to the bear issue in that coming from non-locals) the past few days that ultimately will affect hunting/fishing access in large areas for residents and non-residents alike. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 367
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | TCESOX - 1/28/2025 6:02 PM
As muskie fishermen, our focus should be on muskie, not something that would impact others, as we don't need to draw the ire of people who fish for other stuff. We've been down that road. And if done correctly, we may be able to show a path for other angler groups who may start to feel the same way. Start with something that may be isn't the full answer, but may still have some impact. As the reality of depleted populations starts to percolate, momentum from others can help push more effective solutions.
After reading the 2020 Muskellunge (and Pike) Management Plan, it appears that making things happen is really not that much different than up here in that as a stakeholder group, you can push for fishery managers to come up with management solutions - in this case regs to reduce increased pressure and associated increased mortality. Seems to me that you need to insist you want to have a trophy fishery and need regs to ensure that (obviously open/deep water use of FFS being the best target for regs in my view).
Interesting to see how much power the spearing stakeholder group has and ink in the plan with regards to how carefully the regs cater to them (ie. big pike have no chance in Minnesota).
Edited by Angling Oracle 1/28/2025 6:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1311
| Angling Oracle - 1/28/2025 6:20 PM
Seems to me that you need to insist you want to have a trophy fishery and need regs to ensure that (obviously open/deep water use of FFS being the best target for regs in my view).
It's always been the MN DNRs stated goal, to manage the muskie fishery as a trophy fishery. The now, several years late, 10 year plan, is being finalized, and the discussions regarding FFS are being mapped out, as we speak. |
|
| |
