B.appel13 Posted April 16, 2010 Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 Well the law i find is you are allowed 36 and only use them in the same body of water caught. So im assuming I would be unable to breed my own bait. Am I correct in assuming this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TC1OZ Posted April 16, 2010 Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 Well the law i find is you are allowed 36 and only use them in the same body of water caught. So im assuming I would be unable to breed my own bait. Am I correct in assuming this? I believe you would be correct (someone feel free to correct me). But that would be an invasive species as its not native to our waters and who knows what sorts of chemicals/diseases could possibly be in your tank. But on the other side of the coin... how is "over flow" sewage allowed to run into our waters as long as its within a certain limit... I think the limit should be ZERO! If you want to play by the rules, I'd say don't breed your own! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spottedGARRR Posted April 16, 2010 Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 i don't know for sure, but the idea is to limit introduction of new species or species varieties to existing ecosystems. So if you were using the same crayfish from that body of water to breed then it would be arguable. But i don't think you'd get away with it if questioned. Likely the fact you took the crayfish from the water, across land to your home for breeding would get you into a muck. again i don't know but it sounds like a bad idea. i've noticed when there's an abundance of crayfish in the water, it makes for good bait so gettem while they're hot (goes pretty much for whatever live bait you use, when its abundant in the water the fish are feeding on it, presto magic bait). If you are going to be dipping for your own live bait check out the other limits, and regs so you're not running a hook through protected species Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B.appel13 Posted April 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 ya ive been reading on the regs. guess ill stick to finding my own. thanks for the replies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigugli Posted April 16, 2010 Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 The new bait regs leave no wiggle room. There are all sorts of stock ponds full of Craws, but they can no longer be sold. Rearing your own native fish, bait, etc..., is tangled up in all sorts of regs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briguy Posted April 16, 2010 Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 Well the law i find is you are allowed 36 and only use them in the same body of water caught. So im assuming I would be unable to breed my own bait. Am I correct in assuming this? cant transport over land,so no you cant breed your own, you cant bring them home to save either weather you plan on using them in the same body of water or not, I believe its to stop the spread of the rusty crayfish, some people cant tell the difference so they decided to ban them all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Andrews Posted April 16, 2010 Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 They only banned the sale and transport and I predict you'll see that with all live bait eventually. I don't agree with it but I see it coming. There is grey room though. When we net walleye fry from our rearing ponds it comes loaded with crayfish, mudpuppies, tadpoles, helgramites etc etc etc. However we have to have a permit to move this stuff. Personally I think you should be able to move live bait anywhere throughout a watershed from where it was captured. In the Niagara Pen that gives you at least 3 main sheds to choose from. Niagara, Welland, Grand and 12Mile. All of them are connected somehow either by canal, hydro or great Lakes with 12 mile being the exception for fish travel (one way). Unfortunately there are those that would transport them right across the province to use in the little lake up at the cottage. There's why you'll eventually see live bait banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stickelback Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 they will never be able to inforce a live bait ban.... it is rediculous...... i use live bait every day and i catch lots of fish on it... they better hire lots of COs if that ever happens... its all a farce! people been usin live bait for hundreds of years... i know i wont stop.... im not payin money for artificals... i stayin oldschool fills my freezer!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TC1OZ Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 I have little faith in anything other than the worm or minnow... I'd quit fishing if they banned live bait.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron4blues Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 There are many facets to this issue, and it is a contentious one to be sure. On one hand, there are anglers who are careful and make certain that the live bait they use gets used in water where the species they are using are native. Then there are the ones who don't care and think nothing of dumping unused bait into whatever water happens to be close. With the constant battle against invasives, I can see where limiting carriage of live fish is a sensible move. But would it really make a difference if a bucket of minnows caught in the lower Grand gets dumped into Lake Ontario later in the day? The problem as I see it is that it would be very difficult to prove that the bucket of live bait you have came from "Lake A" or "Stream C." So rather than force CO's to make that sort of call, it is easier just to ban the transport of live fish completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stickelback Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 There are many facets to this issue, and it is a contentious one to be sure. On one hand, there are anglers who are careful and make certain that the live bait they use gets used in water where the species they are using are native. Then there are the ones who don't care and think nothing of dumping unused bait into whatever water happens to be close.With the constant battle against invasives, I can see where limiting carriage of live fish is a sensible move. But would it really make a difference if a bucket of minnows caught in the lower Grand gets dumped into Lake Ontario later in the day? The problem as I see it is that it would be very difficult to prove that the bucket of live bait you have came from "Lake A" or "Stream C." So rather than force CO's to make that sort of call, it is easier just to ban the transport of live fish completely. i see your point but bannin live bait will not stop that.... it will make it worse. people shouldnt be usin invasive species for fishin anyways! shiners are shiners wether they come fro erie ontario or simcoe! what is this world comin too... my gosh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reZ Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 I have little faith in anything other than the worm or minnow... I'd quit fishing if they banned live bait.... My sentiments exactly. But i did get some weird bumper sticker in the mail with my 2010 fishing license and it lists Rusty Crayfish as "only to be used on the waterbody caught" dont know how many types of crayfish there are but better safe than sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron4blues Posted April 17, 2010 Report Share Posted April 17, 2010 i see your point but bannin live bait will not stop that.... it will make it worse. people shouldnt be usin invasive species for fishin anyways! shiners are shiners wether they come fro erie ontario or simcoe! what is this world comin too... my gosh! I agree with you. Completely. Most of the members of this site I'm sure would know the difference between a shiner and a perch fry for instance. But it only takes one person who doesn't to dump a few perch fry into a body of water where they don't belong. Any species can be an invasive, even desirable game or pan fish, if they are introduced into the wrong water. I'll take a page from Nova Scotia. Smallmouth Bass were introduced there in the 1930's to stock watersheds that didn't support trout or salmon. In the past few years they have been popping up everywhere. Many people argued that the spread was natural, or that it was because of fish accidentally dropped by ospreys or from eggs stuck to the legs of waterfowl. Then a year or so ago they appeared in Lake Ainsley. Lake Ainsley is part of the headwaters for one of the most important trout and salmon fisheries in North America. It is also on Cape Breton Island. Well the bass didn't swim across the Canso Strait, up the west coast of the island and then up the Margaree River. . . they don't do too well in salt water. I doubt that any fish picked up by an osprey would live long enough to make the flight, and the "eggs on ducks" theory doesn't fly very well either. Someone transported them there, either through carelessness or design. If there were legislation there prohibiting transport of live fish, perhaps it wouldn't have happened. Perhaps it would have. But at least if someone got caught it might give pause to others of the same bent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.