possible more walleye cuts for nipissing

(Quote) The MNR`s data is terribly flawed. (Quote)
You have absolute proof of this?

I put my faith in the fishery techs that run the nets and come up with what they come up with. What advantage do they have to fudge numbers?
Fish move around great distances on any water body so setting nets on consistent locations time and time again over a number of years is the correct way of determining population fluctuations. Fishery history on that lake goes back at least 60 years so theres certainly enough base data to determine the state of the fishery in comparison to other years.
My only issue with MNR is that they're putting the onus on the sport fishery to correct population issues while apparently ignoring the commercial fishery by not reducing their quotas accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

(Quote) The MNR`s data is terribly flawed. (Quote)
You have absolute proof of this?

I put my faith in the fishery techs that run the nets and come up with what they come up with. What advantage do they have to fudge numbers?
Fish move around great distances on any water body so setting nets on consistent locations time and time again over a number of years is the correct way of determining population fluctuations. Fishery history on that lake goes back at least 60 years so theres certainly enough base data to determine the state of the fishery in comparison to other years.
My only issue with MNR is that they're putting the onus on the sport fishery to correct population issues while apparently ignoring the commercial fishery by not reducing their quotas accordingly.

---

Sawbill, I do not have the same faith. Their net locations may be reasonably consistent but not in good places. Maybe they were 40 years ago but the lake has changed considerably during that time. During the initial discussions MNR had with the stakeholders, I had offered to take the MNR folks responsible out on the lake to show them what is really there. I was told they declined....

It is partially for the very reason you mention above (Commercial netting) that their data is invalid. There are entire schools that get wiped out by the nets. Yes schools move about BUT I believe they track the same way day after day.

I have seen locations that were honey holes go completely dry for a couple years after the nets dropped close by.

Let me put it to you this way;

My worst day walleye fishing on Nip would be considered a banner day on the Kawartha lakes that I fish. Yet those lakes carry a 4 fish limit. Last year we caught Cigars to Walleye over 8 pounds. I also found them everywhere in the lake.

How do you explain this?

I trust my numbers over what the MNR are claiming any day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Jack

Sawbill, I do not have the same faith. Their net locations may be reasonably consistent but not in good places. Maybe they were 40 years ago but the lake has changed considerably during that time. During the initial discussions MNR had with the stakeholders, I had offered to take the MNR folks responsible out on the lake to show them what is really there. I was told they declined....

It is partially for the very reason you mention above (Commercial netting) that their data is invalid. There are entire schools that get wiped out by the nets. Yes schools move about BUT I believe they track the same way day after day.

I have seen locations that were honey holes go completely dry for a couple years after the nets dropped close by.

Let me put it to you this way;

My worst day walleye fishing on Nip would be considered a banner day on the Kawartha lakes that I fish. Yet those lakes carry a 4 fish limit. Last year we caught Cigars to Walleye over 8 pounds. I also found them everywhere in the lake.

How do you explain this?

I trust my numbers over what the MNR are claiming any day.

---

A netting survey done properly has the nets placed at random locations so as not to bias the catch by placing them in areas where one would expect high (or low) catches. There is no "good" or "bad" place to put the net, there is only the place that is randomly selected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blasted_saber

A netting survey done properly has the nets placed at random locations so as not to bias the catch by placing them in areas where one would expect high (or low) catches. There is no "good" or "bad" place to put the net, there is only the place that is randomly selected.

---

Location was asked and they are put in same places apparently every year....

Yes, but it was chosen randomly to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Jack

Location was asked and they are put in same places apparently every year....

---

Hmm I would wager there are places in that lake that walleye seldom travel....

This might account for the numbers being soooooo low.

I believe that the same specific areas should be sampled every year or every study period. Those areas should be selected randomly first time around and you should end up with choice habitat, mediocre habitat and poor habitat in your sampling areas. Only then can you see and compare significant changes in the population from one era to another.
Moose surveys are stratified in this fashion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Jack

Hmm I would wager there are places in that lake that walleye seldom travel....

This might account for the numbers being soooooo low.

---

randomly chosen locations would fine these areas. Netting them yearly would confirm if its true, and display a trend over time. Thats why its done that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

I believe that the same specific areas should be sampled every year or every study period. Those areas should be selected randomly first time around and you should end up with choice habitat, mediocre habitat and poor habitat in your sampling areas. Only then can you see and compare significant changes in the population from one era to another.
Moose surveys are stratified in this fashion.

---

Bang on!

why does the mnr not ride with the native netters they seem to know where the fish are

Sawbill and Blasted - We are not going to agree on this. I have no faith in the MNR's findings or action plan(lack thereof)

They know re stocking works but they are standing in the way of increased efforts. Their ineffectiveness shows utter incompetence. And let me be clear - this is MNR administration I am talking about, not the officers on the ground. I have had the pleasure of meeting the CO's in that area and they are excellent fellows.

There is no way that people would be doing so well if the numbers were so poor. I have had the pleasure of fishing many locations and few rival my success on that body of water. Understand that I put time in on the water to come to that conclusion....

I have fished lakes where the walleye population is in dire straits and you certainly see that from a fishing perspective.

Is there problems - yes. Can they be fixed - not without the termination of unregulated netting and a government with the stomach for doing what needs to be done.

Should the limit be 1 - no way.