blairwelsh Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 There was a post made recently that came across the topic of Live Minnows. One of our contributors was re-iterating their belief that minnows cannot be taken from one body of water to another. · I shared that opinion of the regulation as well. Another one of our contributors answered that you could transport them down the 400 hwys .... (And was correct!) So.... having a “Dilemma” in the regulations (My Understanding) ... I decided to go through them very specifically looking for anything about LIVE MINNOWS. I found that you can INDEED catch, and take minnows pretty well anywhere. The only “exceptions” would be in BAIT RESTRICTED WATERS that would be listed in the ZONE REGS. Here’s what I found with the MNR: The Bait Fish Primer http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/regions/central/pub/baitfish-appat-on/pdf/baitfish-poissons-appats-on_e.pdf MNR http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LetsFish/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_165361.html MOVING LIVE FISH Many new populations of fish have been established through unauthorized stocking. This practice is illegal and can cause great harm to existing fisheries and aquatic ecosystems. A licence is required for all fish (including live spawn) transfers and stocking into Ontario waters, and a licence is required to ship or transport live fish, other than baitfish, taken from Ontario waters. Also, take care when cleaning smelt. Do not rinse equipment or dump entrails into a lake or river. Fertilized smelt eggs can easily invade new waters. Anglers are asked not to move bait from the VHS management zone to areas outside the zone. NO RELEASE OF BAIT · It is illegal to release any live bait or dump the contents of a bait bucket, including the water, into any waters or within 30 m of any waters (see page 13). Always dispose of your unwanted bait and the contents of your bait bucket or bait bucket water on land or in the trash. · Never use gobies as bait. It is against the law to use gobies as bait or have live gobies in your possession. · Use live fish other than those listed as baitfish (page 10) for bait. · It is illegal to bring any crayfish, salamanders, live fish or leeches into Ontario for use as bait. · SALAMANDERS CANNOT BE CAPTURED, IMPORTED, OR USED AS BAIT IN ONTARIO. · Crayfish can only be used for bait in the water body in which they were caught and they cannot be transported overland. NOTE: The capture and use of bait is not allowed in some waters (see other Zone regulations or exceptions for the Zone you are fishing in). A number of changes have been made to bait regulations to protect rare and endangered species, conserve biodiversity and prevent the spread of invasive species. Anglers may not use live yellow perch and alewife as bait anywhere in Ontario Some waters are grouped with other waters that have the same regulatory exceptions and these will generally be listed under the proper name for the largest or most significant water body. If there is nothing stated in the exceptions, then the regulations for the Zone apply. Bait – There are some areas of the province where the use of any form of bait is not allowed. Bait includes live or dead animals, plants or parts. See Bait (page 10), or exceptions to the Zone regulations for the Zone where you are fishing. Baitfish – Some species of fish may be used as bait in some areas (see Bait, page 10). Shows that it is ALWAYS a GOOD IDEA to take the time to READ the REGS yourself! Lol I believe that a lot of “Myths” that circulate come from the difference between: “Ethics” - “Standards” and the actual HARD REGULATIONS. Each has its place, and it’s always nice to see that fisherman are striving to achieve what THEY BELIEVE is the best for the fishery. Difference is ... that sometimes these practices DO NOT necessarily follow the Current Regulations. There is always rooms for improvement, always room to learn some new techniques (Catch & Release etc), Always important to think about invasive ... etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piker Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 Yep, I'm a smart guy cept you wrote COULD transport on a 400 hwy, whereas you CANNOT... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blairwelsh Posted November 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 Yep, I'm a smart guy cept you wrote COULD transport on a 400 hwy, whereas you CANNOT... Thank you. By the way, I could not find any reference to the 400 Series Hwy regulation. Doesnt mean I do not agree with you or challenge the accuracy. Just trying to clarify that one. If you come across the MNR source, please let me know. The "others Exceptions" come from FED GOVT "endangered Species", Invasives etc. I couldnt find anything in the MNR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigugli Posted November 13, 2012 Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 Highway 401 was used as the northern limit of the VHS quarantine zone in the early days as an interim measure while a more thorough policy was established. Minnows from south of that boundary could not be transported or sold north of the 401. The reg was geared specifically to bait dealers, and was no more than a suggestion to the general public. The boundaries of the management zone have been expanded considerably since then, extending up into major watersheds from the St Lawrence up to SS Marie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blairwelsh Posted November 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 Thanks Bigugli, I think if anything I`ve learned about these regs ... is that the MNR should make them more VISABLE and ACCESSABLE. I may be missing something myself, but they are not LISTED EASILY in the regs as most other`s are. Guess I will write the MNR and make a suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasin_musky Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 Blair I agree with you about making things more visable, that being said they also need to make it clear to read the regs. So many people don't even read them. While I was up at St. Clair this past weekend I was talking to a guy and mentioned about the zones regs and he didn"t even know what a zone was in terms of our regs. There is something wrong when these clowns don't know that kind of stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bladeburner Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 Theres a current post right now on another forum about an angler that kept 10 skis from Pigeon lake in a day... ( I highly doubt someone who doesnt know the rules could manage 10 skis anyway, ). How that for reading the regs? Ha ha... True though, too many ignorant anglers, and lack of COs.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasin_musky Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 Theres a current post right now on another forum about an angler that kept 10 skis from Pigeon lake in a day... ( I highly doubt someone who doesnt know the rules could manage 10 skis anyway, ). How that for reading the regs? Ha ha... True though, too many ignorant anglers, and lack of COs.. That is just one of the morons that has no care for our fisheries and is a complete moron. I think people like that should be.... well I won't say what I think. I hope he was caught and charged and his boat and everything taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian_b Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 I agree CM; there should be a test on the regulations in order to get a first time fishing liscense... Too many people have no idea what is in the regs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snags Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 A test would do nothing ... How many people have their drivers license yet speed, run lights, fail to yield or stop ... That would be a major waste of tax payees money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasin_musky Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 I would like to see a test as well. That being said Snags point is very good and is accurate. Would be just a waste of money. They just need to hire more CO's and then we would b able to get a lot of these idiots. Also hiring more CO's would probably pay for itself haha. There's a lot of morons that could and would be paying there wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smerchly Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 I think a test would at least keep anglers from using the excuse " I didn't know " when caught disobeying the rules . The test would be payed for first time licencees as an extra fee , about $20 . The test would include I.D. of fish species including bait and invasive species & written in about 5 languages . It would be good if fishing clubs/groups could have some input with other important questions . I can't think of any other license one can buy where you do not need to know a thing about the reason for a license , including not understanding a word in the terms of the license . Compare a fishing license to obtaining a hunting license . edit....a guy who came from Timbuktoo goes to Can.Tire to get a fishing license . He can't speak a single word of English , only Timbuktoocan , so he grabs a fishing pole , takes it to the courtesy desk & shows the girl the rod & mimics catching a fish & pretends to be writing something . She asked if he wants a fishing license .......he nods his head & goes out the door as a licenced Ontario angler ! Tim Buktoo can now go fishing ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian_b Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 You hit the nail on the head Smerch... Many people do not know the regs, and some of them I would like to believe, had they have known, would not have done what they did... There would always be the ignorant ones that would not care, but to get through to a few at a time is still a step in the right direction... Drivers that speed, run lights, fail to yield or stop, know exactly what they are doing. It is different from someone doing something that they are unaware of... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blairwelsh Posted November 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 I think a basic test should be implemented as well. At least it's a start.... I am the last person in the world to support more government rules, taxes ... etc. However, some things definately need a "higher Power" to administer and regulate. At least taking a test for licensing, would create more 'Awareness" of the regs. As to how people choose to follow these, is now left in their control. Then increase the CO's. (The "real ones") * Many people over the years have suggested "Deputizing" citizens .... NO WAY! You either are TRAINED and carry a REAL BADGE (with real Authority) - or you aint. Period Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasin_musky Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 Everyone is making some dam good points here. I never really think of all points you are making, mind you I also read the regs and follow them so I am not worried. As much as those are all valid points, one thing they need to also do is making the schooling for becoming a CO more attainable. I don't mean so morons can go haha. I know my friend is a CO and he had to move to Lethbridge, Alberta to go to school and he said thats the closest school with the course. I agree with Snags about the cost but I also agree with the other points brought up by Smerch, why not have a test like any other license. It truly would give no excuse for these morons to say I didn't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piker Posted November 16, 2012 Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 If you can't speak English, you shouldn't be allowed in an English speaking country, and negligence is by law not an excuse at all...I didnt know I couldn't murder my neighbour and beat my wife, thanks for the warning, won't happen again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blairwelsh Posted November 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2012 If you can't speak English, you shouldn't be allowed in an English speaking country or FRENCH (... Our other official Language) lol Your point is well made... and i understand it's perspective for the post. However, Remember: that many of our Nicest, Hardest working CANADIANS (at some point "Immigrants") ... couldnt speak either FRENCH or ENGLISH when they came to build a new life for their families and be PROUD CANADIANS. Thankfully Canada has in general OPEN IT"S ARMS to these wonderful people. I hope that it continues. Makes our NATION a GREAT ONE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scapulataf Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 I know my friend is a CO and he had to move to Lethbridge, Alberta to go to school and he said thats the closest school with the course. He didn't look very hard. Its a few hours drive closer than Alberta. http://flemingcollege.ca/programs/conservation-and-environmental-law-enforcement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadadude Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 If you can't speak English, you shouldn't be allowed in an English speaking country, and negligence is by law not an excuse at all...I didnt know I couldn't murder my neighbour and beat my wife, thanks for the warning, won't happen again! Winner of the Dumbest post yet on NFN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasin_musky Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 He didn't look very hard. Its a few hours drive closer than Alberta. http://flemingcolleg...law-enforcement I may be wrong but that course is fairly new I believe. I haven't checked the courses at Fleming since I lived in Peterborough. That was like 4 years ago. I also know that he studied there for fish and wildlife and they didn't have the CO classes there. That was like 7 years ago at least, needless to say I stand corrected that they do now have the courses which is good to see. I can say though that I hardly doubt my friend would have choose to leave Peterborough to spend the money he did when he could have stayed home haha and taken the course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scapulataf Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 Its possible they got rid of it for a few years, but when I went there from 2001-2003 they had it. It was called "Natural Resources Law Enforcement" then. Someone I went to school with from grade to high school with was taking it at the time. We just happened to both go there at the same time, about four years after we both finished high school. She ended up becoming a C.O. for a few years and now she's an OPP in Caledon. I know that there are a few courses from my time there that don't exist anymore so I suppose that one may have been gone for a bit. Maybe your friend just wanted to get away for a few years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasin_musky Posted November 17, 2012 Report Share Posted November 17, 2012 I remember looking into schooling there as well. I was going to go for Fish and Wildlife but after taking with many friends that did the jobs just weren't out there for the students finishing. I would love to be a CO. If I had have noticed it I would have jumped on it. That being said I still do tend to not read everything right lol. Like when I thought musky closed last week haha. An fish last year just before dec. So I could have easily just misread or something. As for my friend though he is kind of a mommas boy haha. Leaving was hard for him plus he had a new girlfriend at the time. So had it been around I am sure that would have been there. They do tend to change the courses up fairly often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.