If you could change/create one Fishing reg/law, what would it be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flytyermiller

Totally on board with everyone asking for two+ rods from shore. The carp fishery in ontario is something we should promote, and judging by the setups used in europe, i'd say we could improve the way we approach shore fishing and try to get people into carp fishing by allowing more rods..

i understand most people here probably aren't carp fisherman, and that's not why they wanted two lines from shore, but this is just my reasoning on why i'd be for it 100%. more tourism, more fishing, more people taking carp out of our waters.

---

The MNRF does not and will not promote an invasive species .
Glen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G Skinner

The MNRF does not and will not promote an invasive species .
Glen

---

We're talking about promoting CATCHING an invasive species. More carp fishermen doesn't make for more carp, unless of course some of them go renegade and start trying to establish carp in new waters, which is illegal and unethical for any species whether native to Ontario or not.

Also I don't think common carp are legally treated like invasives the way, say, round gobies or silver carp are. Yes they're non-native but so are rainbow trout... of course you can make the argument that common carp are more harmful, but I don't think there's a difference in legal status.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G Skinner

The MNRF does not and will not promote an invasive species .
Glen

---

Based on their definition. Rainbow/steelhead, brown trout, all the salmons except atlantic, and so on and so forth are all non-natives too. I understand the debate will begin as to what is invasive and what isn't. we don't have to get into that, but the fact is they choose arbitrarily based on financial opportunity and gain. and carp could meet that category. carp aren't native to the UK either but are big business there.
There is no reason to stock and support all of these non-natives other than financial gain from tourism and fisherman. Carp are here to stay love it or hate it, so why not reap the rewards. though it would be a good idea to change its name so it starts to distance itself from the current threat of the asian carps, much like what was done with the "patagonian toothfish" which i believe was rebranded as seabass? to get the consumer to be more into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flytyermiller

much like what was done with the "patagonian toothfish" which i believe was rebranded as seabass? to get the consumer to be more into it.

---

"Chilean seabass", yes. "Seabass" by itself would mean European seabass which is of course totally unrelated. But the rebranding you speak of is I think just for purposes of the supermarket fish counter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tweedwolfscream

"Chilean seabass", yes. "Seabass" by itself would mean European seabass which is of course totally unrelated. But the rebranding you speak of is I think just for purposes of the supermarket fish counter.

---

that's what i was looking for thanks. chilean seabass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark270wsm

The MNRF knows what licences you have as well.. but the law is you must keep licence on you on you at all times... Here is one even better if you are handi cap it clearly states on your permit that you can not copy it , but the mnrf clearly states that you must have your handi cap permit with you at the time of fishing as you don't need to buy a licence .. the officer has told me to copy it with a scanner .. 5000 dollar fine for scanning it if caught ..

---

My understanding of the restriction of copying a documet/ ID is that as long as it looks significantly different you're ok. For example if you take a B&W photocopy of your driver license of course it's not a forgery and just to be sure you shrink or enlarge it there's one more thing that's different form the original and therefore not an illegal reproduction. Note: double check this, I'm fairly sure but not a lawyer or LEO.

The shore lines are over crowded in way too many places already. Add a second rod per fisherman and you have a recipe for disaster. Think of the steelhead runs with two rods per fishermen. WOW that would be better than UFC. One rod is just fine. If you can't catch them with one, two won't help.

muddler

True, but 2 lines could be helpful and not a crowding problem among folks who still-fish for cats and various coarse fish on pond shores. You'd probably have to make a "one line only when shore fishing" exception for all popular rivers especially those with salmonid runs.

Anyway, new one to add... since dogs are allowed for hunting for certain species/areas, why not for fishing?
http://imgur.com/TnmlzlU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muddler

The shore lines are over crowded in way too many places already. Add a second rod per fisherman and you have a recipe for disaster. Think of the steelhead runs with two rods per fishermen. WOW that would be better than UFC. One rod is just fine. If you can't catch them with one, two won't help.

muddler

---

Im not one to join in on already overcrowded areas I go out to relax in remote spots and 2 rods would be nice for different species as I already mentioned. Why shouldnt I be able to fish for crappie or perch and also cast for bass or pike etc....

I'd like to see waaaay more catch and release only areas on our streams. Not that many trout left in the south.

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk