Possible Fishing Ban at Grenadier Pond

[Sailor Joe]

Recreational fishing at Grenadier Pond in High Park may come to an end:

http://www.highparknature.org/wiki/uploa...3Jan13.pdf
 
And
 
http://www.highparknature.org/wiki/wiki....tCommittee

[Giuga10]

This has been a long and heated discussion. I really hope they don't ban it but in the end it is the cities decision, hopefully fisherman can persuade them not to.

It's the fisherman who don't give a s**t, who are ruining it for all of us. The same guys who fish with two rods in the water and the same guys who throw their bags, cartons, and cans in the water, and the same guys who keep over the limit amount of fish, and the same guys who don't fish with a license and it's those same guys who don't care to admit and change what they are doing. I've made many of the mistakes listed above and more but I've learned to correct myself and stop before it becomes a habit and that's something we should all aim for.

Seems like those guys outnumber the good guys too, or maybe it's just the over the top "tree huggers" that blame many problems with water habitats on the fisherman. Some times I may be a tree hugger too but to blame it strictly on fisherman is a bit absurd.

Just sad.........

Sorry for the rant.... Just had to get it off my chest.

[Sailor Joe]

(02-19-2013 11:21 PM)Giuga10 Wrote:  This has been a long and heated discussion. I really hope they don't ban it but in the end it is the cities decision, hopefully fisherman can persuade them not to.

It's the fisherman who don't give a s**t, who are ruining it for all of us. The same guys who fish with two rods in the water and the same guys who throw their bags, cartons, and cans in the water, and the same guys who keep over the limit amount of fish, and the same guys who don't fish with a license and it's those same guys who don't care to admit and change what they are doing. I've made many of the mistakes listed above and more but I've learned to correct myself and stop before it becomes a habit and that's something we should all aim for.

Seems like those guys outnumber the good guys too, or maybe it's just the over the top "tree huggers" that blame many problems with water habitats on the fisherman. Some times I may be a tree hugger too but to blame it strictly on fisherman is a bit absurd.

Just sad.........

Sorry for the rant.... Just had to get it off my chest.

I'm fairly certain provincial laws exists. But this looks like a lack of enforcement problem. Some of the recommendations in the reports are ridiculous. Like having to ware your license around your neck. As if anyone can read from afar if it's a fake or not. Ludicrous. Just patrol and enforce.

[MuskieBait]

(02-19-2013 11:37 PM)Sailor Joe Wrote:  I'm fairly certain provincial laws exists. But this looks like a lack of enforcement problem. Some of the recommendations in the reports are ridiculous. Like having to ware your license around your neck. As if anyone can read from afar if it's a fake or not. Ludicrous. Just patrol and enforce.

Not really...

For quite a few years, California enforced the same regulation (wearing the license around your neck). It was actually a better system since Officers can quickly observe anglers from afar using binoculars for license compliance, and then watch the anglers from afar for any violations. In general, anglers were less "bothered" by Officers since there are less occasions where an Officer approach anglers to check for licenses, gear restriction and catches. It makes for a more "peaceful" experience.

They have changed that now, but some California anglers still wear their license around their neck as a habit.

I actually like that system...display your license...if it is not there, you're obviously either 1) forgot your license (which is a violation anyways since it ALWAYS has to be with you while you are fishing) or 2) fishing without a license. If you see someone fishing without a license displayed, you can then quickly call 222-TIPS to report the violation to the MNR. A regular citizen don't have the rights to ask to see someone's license...as such, the guy beside you could be fishing without a license. With a mandatory display of license, citizens can always call in violations, and maybe I'm optimistic about it, but it can help to reduce the incidence of people fishing without their licenses (as long as CO's respond to violations that were called in).

---

(02-19-2013 11:21 PM)Giuga10 Wrote:  This has been a long and heated discussion. I really hope they don't ban it but in the end it is the cities decision, hopefully fisherman can persuade them not to.

It's the fisherman who don't give a s**t, who are ruining it for all of us. The same guys who fish with two rods in the water and the same guys who throw their bags, cartons, and cans in the water, and the same guys who keep over the limit amount of fish, and the same guys who don't fish with a license and it's those same guys who don't care to admit and change what they are doing. I've made many of the mistakes listed above and more but I've learned to correct myself and stop before it becomes a habit and that's something we should all aim for.

Seems like those guys outnumber the good guys too, or maybe it's just the over the top "tree huggers" that blame many problems with water habitats on the fisherman. Some times I may be a tree hugger too but to blame it strictly on fisherman is a bit absurd.

Just sad.........

Sorry for the rant.... Just had to get it off my chest.

Violators are always more visible than law abiding citizens...but yes...without enforcement, such as the case for High Park, it does get out of hand and the number of violators seems to congregate there. It's such a shame.

[Sailor Joe]

(02-20-2013 11:27 AM)MuskieBait Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 11:37 PM)Sailor Joe Wrote:  I'm fairly certain provincial laws exists. But this looks like a lack of enforcement problem. Some of the recommendations in the reports are ridiculous. Like having to ware your license around your neck. As if anyone can read from afar if it's a fake or not. Ludicrous. Just patrol and enforce.

Not really...

For quite a few years, California enforced the same regulation (wearing the license around your neck). It was actually a better system since Officers can quickly observe anglers from afar using binoculars for license compliance, and then watch the anglers from afar for any violations. In general, anglers were less "bothered" by Officers since there are less occasions where an Officer approach anglers to check for licenses, gear restriction and catches. It makes for a more "peaceful" experience.

They have changed that now, but some California anglers still wear their license around their neck as a habit.

I actually like that system...display your license...if it is not there, you're obviously either 1) forgot your license (which is a violation anyways since it ALWAYS has to be with you while you are fishing) or 2) fishing without a license. If you see someone fishing without a license displayed, you can then quickly call 222-TIPS to report the violation to the MNR. A regular citizen don't have the rights to ask to see someone's license...as such, the guy beside you could be fishing without a license. With a mandatory display of license, citizens can always call in violations, and maybe I'm optimistic about it, but it can help to reduce the incidence of people fishing without their licenses (as long as CO's respond to violations that were called in).

---

(02-19-2013 11:21 PM)Giuga10 Wrote:  This has been a long and heated discussion. I really hope they don't ban it but in the end it is the cities decision, hopefully fisherman can persuade them not to.

It's the fisherman who don't give a s**t, who are ruining it for all of us. The same guys who fish with two rods in the water and the same guys who throw their bags, cartons, and cans in the water, and the same guys who keep over the limit amount of fish, and the same guys who don't fish with a license and it's those same guys who don't care to admit and change what they are doing. I've made many of the mistakes listed above and more but I've learned to correct myself and stop before it becomes a habit and that's something we should all aim for.

Seems like those guys outnumber the good guys too, or maybe it's just the over the top "tree huggers" that blame many problems with water habitats on the fisherman. Some times I may be a tree hugger too but to blame it strictly on fisherman is a bit absurd.

Just sad.........

Sorry for the rant.... Just had to get it off my chest.

Violators are always more visible than law abiding citizens...but yes...without enforcement, such as the case for High Park, it does get out of hand and the number of violators seems to congregate there. It's such a shame.

How do you suppose binoculars are going to detect a fake or expired outdoors card from afar on a poacher? My eyes are not that good. If you are able to actually read the expiry date on the card or notice a fake card then I have to hand it to you, you are awesome! If you have eyes like me, you would have to make the effort anyway and approach the angler to visually confirm. So I don’t see how hanging your license around your neck prevents people from breaking the law in the first place. It’s just a nuisance to those who abide by the law.

[MuskieBait]

(02-20-2013 11:53 AM)Sailor Joe Wrote:  How do you suppose binoculars are going to detect a fake or expired outdoors card from afar on a poacher? My eyes are not that good. If you are able to actually read the expiry date on the card or notice a fake card then I have to hand it to you, you are awesome! If you have eyes like me, you would have to make the effort anyway and approach the angler to visually confirm. So I don’t see how hanging your license around your neck prevents people from breaking the law in the first place. It’s just a nuisance to those who abide by the law.

Fake is harder to detect, but expired is easy. Every year, the license is printed on different colour paper. You can tell between a yellow sheet of paper from a blue sheet of paper.

Here's how it worked for California.

Each CO has his/her own patrol range. The CO regularly patrol the same areas. Anglers who frequent a certain areas may be checked by the CO a couple of times. The CO then recognizes these anglers, already confirmed they had the valid licenses, and from there onwards the CO only need a visual confirmation of the license for future patrol. If there were only a couple of "regulars" on the stretch of beach, the CO does not need to get out of his car, walk down to the beach, and check for licenses. The CO knows who is fishing (recognizing the regulars) and knows they already have valid license. So the CO only need to take out the binoculars, observe from afar for the displayed valid license, everything is OK, then the CO can move on to patrol another beach.

It is more time and resource efficient to operate this way.

In Ontario, a CO can patrol a busy stream quickly (eg. Bowmanville Creek during the salmon run) by scanning for a displayed licenses instead of approaching each angler one by one to check for licenses. They can cover more grounds quickly and it allows the CO to patrol more streams and cite more violations in one day that way...instead of spending 2 minutes with each angler waiting for them to dig the licenses out of their waders, backpack, wallet...etc.

It's all about efficient use of time...which then improved the use of the limited resources.

I'm not the one sitting there with binoculars...CO's are...and they have very good eyesight. Trust me...I've seen them on Simcoe with binoculars spying on people from afar for over limit catches. I've also been on Bay of Quinte where they were spying on us from afar...and as soon as we landed and released an out-of-season largemouth bass, they approached us within seconds.

I've bumped into CO's on the small streams before fly fishing for brook trout and when I talked to them, they had been spying on me to see if I was pinching down my barbs (barbless rules) and whether I was fishing with artificial lures or livebait (artificial only)...and I had no idea he was even there.

A lot of things happen in the background without you ever knowing. And they have much better eyesight than you give them credit for.

I'm just saying...it worked in California in the past...it can work here. I would much rather settle for a bit of hassle (ie, displaying the license by wearing it so it is visible) and improve the patrol efficiency and frequency of CO's...afterall, we are all in favour for more patrols and more enforcement...and if that little hassle can help the CO...I'm all for it.

[Sailor Joe]

(02-20-2013 12:20 PM)MuskieBait Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 11:53 AM)Sailor Joe Wrote:  How do you suppose binoculars are going to detect a fake or expired outdoors card from afar on a poacher? My eyes are not that good. If you are able to actually read the expiry date on the card or notice a fake card then I have to hand it to you, you are awesome! If you have eyes like me, you would have to make the effort anyway and approach the angler to visually confirm. So I don’t see how hanging your license around your neck prevents people from breaking the law in the first place. It’s just a nuisance to those who abide by the law.

Fake is harder to detect, but expired is easy. Every year, the license is printed on different colour paper.

I'm not the one sitting there with binoculars...CO's are...and they have very good eyesight. Trust me...I've seen them on Simcoe with binoculars spying on people from afar for over limit catches. I've also been on Bay of Quinte where they were spying on us from afar...and as soon as we landed and released an out-of-season largemouth bass, they approached us within seconds.

I've bumped into CO's on the small streams before fly fishing for brook trout and when I talked to them, they had been spying on me to see if I was pinching down my barbs (barbless rules) and whether I was fishing with artificial lures or livebait (artificial only)...and I had no idea he was even there.

A lot of things happen in the background without you ever knowing. And they have much better eyesight than you give them credit for.

I'm just saying...it worked in California in the past...it can work here.

You and I get the law and understand it. But poachers don't care. That's why I support aggressive patrolling. Currently the issue is that there is none at High Park and as such we have bans being contemplated.

[MuskieBait]

(02-20-2013 12:27 PM)Sailor Joe Wrote:  You and I get the law and understand it. But poachers don't care. That's why I support aggressive patrolling. Currently the issue is that there is none at High Park and as such we have bans being contemplated.

You can still have active and aggressive patrolling without having the presence of the CO seen.

In my mind, it worked even better if the CO came out stealthy to check people, instead of constantly walking around.

The "threat" of getting check is often effective enough to deter violations. Random checks can do that.

The reality is that there are too few COs and their patrol range are too large for them to be "stationed" at High Park every day, every hour. High Park, to be honest, is a very small resource out of the larger scope of all the fishable waters of Ontario. To be honest, I would not want them to spend the one and only CO in this area just focused on High Park...because there are so many fishable waters simply in the City of Toronto. I would much rather have community effort to educate and help report violators than to have a CO stations there.

---

(02-20-2013 11:53 AM)Sailor Joe Wrote:  How do you suppose binoculars are going to detect a fake or expired outdoors card from afar on a poacher? My eyes are not that good. If you are able to actually read the expiry date on the card or notice a fake card then I have to hand it to you, you are awesome!

As an aside, the outdoor card is just another "tax" or "license" for the use of resource as a way to regulate the use of that resource. I find it ridiculous to have a new card renewal every 3 years...and have to waste plastic for this "fee" to use the resource.

In practicality, they can just divide up the cost of the outdoors card and add that onto the price of the existing license.

But of course, it's difficult to say "we're increasing the cost of license from $12 to $15"...instead, they use a political move to introduce the outdoors card so that you get this "card" before you can get your license...

But in environmental economic sense, and to the coffers of the MNR, the outdoor card is just another way to add a "license fee" that adds revenue to the operations of MNR.

So after all of this, what I really want to say is that you can really just get rid of the outdoors card and not have to worry about checking the expiry date of that card at all, then roll the additional cost of the card onto the license fee (increase license fee), and just print out a new annual license on different colour papers every year. Now you can patrol and observe from afar without worrying about the eyesight of the CO's.

[Sailor Joe]

Until the MNR changes the look of the cards/licenses, I can print whatever I want and make it look like the real thing. That is of course until you come up to me and visually check.

I can scan a $100 dollar bill on my color scanner and from afar, you would think I have $100.

And if you ask me, a certain portion of the fees you pay to the MNR should be for the enforcement of problem area’s like High Park. If that’s not enough, deputize the park wardens. I’m not saying a community effort is not required here. Don’t get me wrong. I’m saying step up the enforcement in addition too. Otherwise we will lose access to Grenadier Pond.

[MuskieBait]

(02-20-2013 01:40 PM)Sailor Joe Wrote:  Until the MNR changes the look of the cards/licenses, I can print whatever I want and make it look like the real thing. That is of course until you come up to me and visually check.

I can scan a $100 dollar bill on my color scanner and from afar, you would think I have $100.

And if you ask me, a certain portion of the fees you pay to the MNR should be for the enforcement of problem area’s like High Park. If that’s not enough, deputize the park wardens. I’m not saying a community effort is not required here. Don’t get me wrong. I’m saying step up the enforcement in addition too. Otherwise we will lose access to Grenadier Pond.

Again, if you are fishing at High Park every weekend, CO's only need to check you a couple of times when he first met you and made sure you have a valid license. Every time after that, why does he/she needs to come up to you to make sure your license is real and not counterfeit EVERY TIME? The license is good for one year...if you already have a real license at the beginning of May, it is the same license you carry for the rest of the year.

As such, simply having it displayed while you are fishing, since the CO has already validated the authenticity of your license, and the CO has already recognized you, he/she does not need to waste time to check you (and wait for you to dig out your license from your wallet or backpack). He/she simply do a visual scan for your license, then move on to check someone else. It saves time for the CO...time that the CO can use to patrol other areas.

Since High Park is a relatively low priority area, saving time for the CO means now they could have the extra time to actually patrol High Park.

Yes, at the beginning of the year, or for someone that the CO is not familiar with, there needs to be an approach and check system to confirm validity of the licenses...but after that, if you are a regular angler at a certain location, there is no need to check every time. It's a waste of time and resources.

Remember also that CO's job not only pertain to fishing, but also hunting compliance and crimes against wildlife like trapping, poisoning and inhumane treatment of wild animals, plus any destruction of habitat both ground and in water. There is so much to cover for each CO in his/her patrol area...again...High Park is just a drop in their large bucket and it is not really that high priority in some cases.

Don't even get me started on stormwater ponds...as much as it is a shame...there is much more valuable resources out there to protect than a stormwater pond fishery.

A CO can spend a week patrolling Lake Simcoe on the ice without going over the same location once during that week. There is A LOT of grounds for CO to cover!