Ontario Shore Fishing Forum

I was thinking we could create an updated version of this PDF http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/...163569.pdf
I could plot the locations on a google map which would be a lot more user friendly than the current map on the PDF. I would also be looking for fish species that have recently(within the last 5 years) been caught in urban ponds and how common they are in the waterbody. Someone could create a chart which would go hand in hand with the map. A main reason for me wanting to do this is because I find some of the fish species availability to be inaccurate. Instead of making the chart, I believe inputting the information onto markers on a google map would be more efficient, easier to use and to create. For example, when some clicks a marker, it would show which species are common, uncommon, rare and seasonal, the specific season could be inputted as well as any other information that could relevant to an angler wishing to fish a certain body of water. We would stick with only the main ponds/lakes though such as the ones on the PDF or ones with parks, the harder to reach locations which people have found through their own hard work can be left out.
Similar to this http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&ms...03c61cedc7 except it would have markers for each pond and information about the available fishing opportunities when clicked on.

Is anyone interested in doing this?

(08-07-2013 10:57 PM)Randy Wrote: [ -> ]I find some of the fish species availability to be inaccurate

For all the spots I have fished on the list, it seems accurate to me!

no one likes surprises anymore?!

(08-08-2013 08:48 AM)rich_ace_G Wrote: [ -> ]no one likes surprises anymore?!

Well it would assist people in catching more fish, for example if bass are not confirmed to be common there then it doesn't make much sense to be throwing a 4"stick worm. It could save people from targeting non-existent or nearly non-existent species.

Similar to Nick's idea here:

http://ontarioshorefishing.com/forum/Thr...nd-Project

You two should collaborate. I agree that the google maps interface with markers is the way to go for this project.

(08-08-2013 03:03 PM)Randy Wrote: [ -> ]Well it would assist people in catching more fish, for example if bass are not confirmed to be common there then it doesn't make much sense to be throwing a 4"stick worm. It could save people from targeting non-existent or nearly non-existent species.

Also, just because bass are present doesn't mean that large bass willing to eat a 4" worm are present. There are many ponds where nearly all bass will top out under 1lb.

(08-08-2013 09:46 PM)MichaelAngelo Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-08-2013 03:03 PM)Randy Wrote: [ -> ]Well it would assist people in catching more fish, for example if bass are not confirmed to be common there then it doesn't make much sense to be throwing a 4"stick worm. It could save people from targeting non-existent or nearly non-existent species.

Also, just because bass are present doesn't mean that large bass willing to eat a 4" worm are present. There are many ponds where nearly all bass will top out under 1lb.

4" is big?

(08-08-2013 10:29 PM)alex_fish Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-08-2013 09:46 PM)MichaelAngelo Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-08-2013 03:03 PM)Randy Wrote: [ -> ]Well it would assist people in catching more fish, for example if bass are not confirmed to be common there then it doesn't make much sense to be throwing a 4"stick worm. It could save people from targeting non-existent or nearly non-existent species.

Also, just because bass are present doesn't mean that large bass willing to eat a 4" worm are present. There are many ponds where nearly all bass will top out under 1lb.

4" is big?

Well I believe a 4" stick worm would be used to target bass, panfish lures are typically much smaller but that's not to say that panfish won't strike a 4" stick worm, it would be hard to hook them though especially if using a texas rig and a typical hook for a 4" worm.

(08-08-2013 03:03 PM)Randy Wrote: [ -> ]Well it would assist people in catching more fish, for example if bass are not confirmed to be common there then it doesn't make much sense to be throwing a 4"stick worm. It could save people from targeting non-existent or nearly non-existent species.

I think the government list is probably based on fish species census conducted through electrofishing. Common = Strong Population.

Just because the fish are there does not mean you'll be able to catch them, the same species in two different bodies of water will have different behaviours suited to the environment. It is up to the fishermen to try different presentations to find what works there.

I do however, think the list needs to be updated, as I've definitely caught tons of 'possible' species that to me would be considered 'common' category. I've also caught lots of species at some of these spots that aren't even listed as being there.

(08-09-2013 12:34 AM)mcfly Wrote: [ -> ]the same species in two different bodies of water will have different behaviours suited to the environment.

THIS! I learned this on Tuesday. Watching your line and setting the hook... for Carp? Who woulda guessed