New Legislation Aims To Prevent Spread Of Invasives - Fishing in the News - Nova Scotia Fishing

Jump to content


Photo

New Legislation Aims To Prevent Spread Of Invasives


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#1 Terran

Terran

    To do nothing is unacceptable.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2726 posts
  • LocationHRM

Posted 10 November 2011 - 10:04 PM

Hey Anglers,

As you may know, especially if you attended the RFAC meeting in your area, Inland Fisheries is in the process of having new legislation approved. Here is a link to a story in todays Chronicle Herald : http://thechronicleh...ed-fish-species

If passed this legislation will make it illegal to possess live fish; with a few exceptions.

I can see the need for this legislation, as a tool for enforcement, in the battle against the spread of invasives, however I do have a small issue.

I simply wish, that in drafting this legislation, some consideration might have been given to allowing those with live wells or keeping devices to be allowed to hold fish on the body of water they are fishing.

For instance, if I'm fishing for White Perch and I catch the first one; I either have to kill it immediately or set it free (under the new legislation). Herein is my only dispute with the new regs. Before, I could place the perch in a holding device (keep net, livewell, etc.) and had the choice to release it if I didn't catch another or enough to make a meal.

Under the new regulation, I would have killed a fish that I may have otherwise released.

I have practiced this technique for years and the fish were released none the worse for wear. No floaters or sickly fish released. Under this new regulation, I will either be forced to kill a fish I may not want or release a fish I may later regret freeing. (Note: This applies to coarse fish, as I rarely keep even a couple trout a year)

I guess I understand the need to remove any possible loopholes, however it would have been nice to have had an option while on the water. Any fish transported away from the water would definitely be understandable. There are a lot of guy's, who don't tournament fish, that now have useless livewells in their boat's. Guess they could use them as bait wells?

As my friend says, "It simply makes me feel that they are painting everyone with the same criminal brush". Once again, a very few have ruined it for everyone.

This new regulation will take a little getting used too. I only hope that the enforcement is there to catch the real criminals and that we haven't just created a reason for the criminals to come up with new schemes.

Any opinions?

Terran
  • 0

"In these sad and ominous days of mad fortune chasing, every patriotic, thoughtful citizen, whether he fishes or not, should lament that we have not among our countrymen more fishermen."  Grover Cleveland
 


#2 jsawler

jsawler

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 806 posts
  • Locationforrest home

Posted 10 November 2011 - 11:32 PM

i think you're correct terran. the rotten few are ruining it for the honest majority.

but with the current loop holes , and nobody actually charged with moving fish in the past. it is OBVIOUSLY happening. so if this would help them with a conviction , power to them.imo

imo, everything gets worse before it gets better. if we are to keep all the invasives from spreading , i think this is a good step.pointing at just the bass and pickrel won't work neither.imo. that leaves people move other fish to watersheds that they are not natural to neither.whether it be white perch to your favorite brookie hole , brown trout , yellow perch.......

it's also nice to see them aproaching the aquirium trade as well!

later, jonathan
  • 0

#3 pmorris

pmorris

    Levity Consultant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1787 posts
  • LocationBedford, NS

Posted 11 November 2011 - 08:28 AM

Terran,

I hear you, but for the cost of a few coarse fish whose populations are doing well, I prefer keeping the regulations as clear-cut as possible to make enforcement easier.

Paul
  • 0

I started reading a book about anti-gravity and I just couldn't put it down.


#4 Lee

Lee

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 207 posts
  • LocationPort Hawkesbury

Posted 11 November 2011 - 10:00 AM

Hopefully this will lead to a conviction. This is a really important issue in my neck of the woods as we haven't really been overrun with invasive species yet(hopefully never). Whatever the authorities need to do to keep our waterways free of pickerel and bass-I will support. It's too bad that law-abiding, conservation minded anglers will have to change their methods wrt live wells, but it is for the greater good. I was glad to see that they left the live bait issue alone as I had been hearing rumblings/rumors of a total live bait ban and I do like to use live minnows for bait. It will also be welcomed to not see any more live trout on stringers (which always bothered me-I have even seen them released when a bigger one was landed).
  • 0
Even a fish wouldn't get into trouble if he kept his mouth shut.

#5 scottw

scottw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 12 November 2011 - 09:12 AM

Terran, I argued this very point several months ago when it came up. I was summarily shot down by many on this board.
People claim the livewell law eliminate's loopholes in the regulations, but they are completely incorrect.
The sole purpose of the livewell regulation is to give enforcement an "easy out". Once a boat is pulled out of the water and is headed down the road with fish in the livewell (or pail, bucket, cooler) for the purposes of an unlawful stocking, the odds of being caught are exactly zero (unless the offence is reported). Under the new legislation, all the enforcement officers have to do is show up at various lakes a couple of times per summer and search every boat with a livewell. If they find a live fish in a livewell, then they can lay a charge. Then in the eyes of some people, they have done the fishing world a service.
So much for keeping fish for pictures or being able to experience having little kids watching in wonderment at their fish swimming around in the livewell, and the lesson of catch and release when they put them back into the lake. IMO.
  • 0

#6 scottw

scottw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 12 November 2011 - 09:21 AM

I was glad to see that they left the live bait issue alone as I had been hearing rumblings/rumors of a total live bait ban and I do like to use live minnows for bait.

The live bait issue is exactly where they should have started. There are minnow traps in just about every lake near a community. These lakes often contain pickerel and bass; what do you think ends up in the traps?!? The minnows are then used "up country" for trout fishing excursions. Are officers at these upcountry lakes to make sure no invasive species are in the baitwell? Does Joe Average Fisherman care what species of minnows he has for his/her once-a-year trip to a backwoods lake? You know the answer to both of these questions.
And people think boats with livewells are the preferred method of the "bucket biologists"? Take a very, very serious look elsewhere.
  • 0

#7 Terran

Terran

    To do nothing is unacceptable.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2726 posts
  • LocationHRM

Posted 12 November 2011 - 11:07 AM

Hey Gang,

With regard to the live bait issue, I wonder what sellers are going to have to go through to be allowed to trap,hold and sell live minnows?

Permits, licences, inspections and such. Is this the end of the roadside bait sellers? Or will they just ignore them? Somehow I doubt it.

Terran
  • 0

"In these sad and ominous days of mad fortune chasing, every patriotic, thoughtful citizen, whether he fishes or not, should lament that we have not among our countrymen more fishermen."  Grover Cleveland
 


#8 Tim

Tim

    Advanced Member

  • Field Editor
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 12 November 2011 - 11:42 AM

It really surprises me how much a few can make out of a couple of petty inconveniences. The reality is that invasives are spreading and based on where they are showing up, juveniles are not the primary mode of introduction. There are many angling laws that are inconvenient to anglers but are necessary to dissuade poachers and others that unknowingly and knowingly destroy natural ecosystems. Gear Restrictions, seasons, bag limits, slot sizes could all be considered inconvenient to anglers but without them, what would be the state of our recreational fishery. Possession of live fish laws are at least as important to insure the protection of our native aquatic species as any that are on the books now. In less than 50 years SMB and CP have colonized over 50 of approximately 200 main stem watersheds in Nova Scotia. Of these 50 main stem watersheds only 4 were colonized through sanctioned introductions. The rate of spread is increasing. Arguments against live fish possesion laws are pretty weak when put in context with what could be lost without them.
  • 0
Stop Aquatic Invasives! Spread the word, not the species.

#9 scottw

scottw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 12 November 2011 - 12:00 PM

The reality is that invasives are spreading and based on where they are showing up, juveniles are not the primary mode of introduction.

And the scientific basis for this is?
  • 0

#10 Lee

Lee

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 207 posts
  • LocationPort Hawkesbury

Posted 12 November 2011 - 01:55 PM

The live bait issue is exactly where they should have started. There are minnow traps in just about every lake near a community. These lakes often contain pickerel and bass; what do you think ends up in the traps?!? The minnows are then used "up country" for trout fishing excursions. Are officers at these upcountry lakes to make sure no invasive species are in the baitwell? Does Joe Average Fisherman care what species of minnows he has for his/her once-a-year trip to a backwoods lake? You know the answer to both of these questions.
And people think boats with livewells are the preferred method of the "bucket biologists"? Take a very, very serious look elsewhere.


The onus is on the angler to know his bait, and I know what you're saying about "Joe Average" and his once a year trip, but now with these new regs maybe the COs will be more vigilant in checking bait wells and buckets to ensure compliance. Since it will be illegal to possess live invasives, there would be a charge right there upon finding one in a bait bucket. The word wouldn't take long getting around then.
  • 0
Even a fish wouldn't get into trouble if he kept his mouth shut.

#11 Lee

Lee

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 207 posts
  • LocationPort Hawkesbury

Posted 12 November 2011 - 07:23 PM

I would, however, like to see some guidelines with regard to using live minnows (such as allowable species maybe?). There then could be a section in the handbook to identify these species and maybe help "Joe Average" figure out that he has baby picks in his bucket.
  • 0
Even a fish wouldn't get into trouble if he kept his mouth shut.

#12 scottw

scottw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 12 November 2011 - 07:56 PM

We occasionally have "fun" spur-of-the-moment bass tourneys; often we will take someone who rarely fishes, or kids along for the experience. Fish a few hours, gather at the shore for a weigh-in and maybe a barbeque, and let the fish go. So much for that.
New livewell regulations being a minor inconvenience is in the eye of the beholder: it's something like banning guns on the premise that it will end crime. It's just a minor inconvenience, we can all learn to use a bow and arrow. All the urban dwellers, anti-hunters, and non-hunters will support it. What's a lttle social re-engineering among friends?
People that want to illegally move fish from location to location will continue to do so, while the rest of us will follow the regs.
  • 1

#13 Terran

Terran

    To do nothing is unacceptable.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2726 posts
  • LocationHRM

Posted 13 November 2011 - 08:12 PM

Scottw,

You make an excellent point. Well said.

Terran
  • 0

"In these sad and ominous days of mad fortune chasing, every patriotic, thoughtful citizen, whether he fishes or not, should lament that we have not among our countrymen more fishermen."  Grover Cleveland
 


#14 Tim

Tim

    Advanced Member

  • Field Editor
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 13 November 2011 - 08:49 PM

Your right you two that is a great rational not to support this legislation. And I love how you worked gun possession into the argument, it worked for the conservatives why not for you. No wait a moment that is the biggest load of crap that I have read on here in a while and between Terrain and X there have been some real piles in the last week or two.
  • 0
Stop Aquatic Invasives! Spread the word, not the species.

#15 scottw

scottw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 14 November 2011 - 06:12 AM

Your right you two that is a great rational not to support this legislation. And I love how you worked gun possession into the argument, it worked for the conservatives why not for you. No wait a moment that is the biggest load of crap that I have read on here in a while and between Terrain and X there have been some real piles in the last week or two.

You can fully support the livewell regulations if you wish, and maybe you can fool yourself into thinking it's going to have some sort of positive effect; that's your perogative.
Bass are within 20 miles of some of the hottest trout fishing waters that I've fished, and I've fished there since I was a kid. Do I feel satisfied that the waters are now protected with the new legislation? Absolutely not! Should some idiot decide to move bass or pickerel to those waters then no amount of chest thumping legislation will stop them, and certainly not this weak and useless law.
The government bureaucrats wrote this legislation for one reason: to fool people like Tim into thinking that they are doing something about the problem.

Tim, your signature reveals the source of your mindset:
"Bass fishing is like T ball...no grown man should be caught doing either"
  • 0

#16 dave

dave

    Admin

  • Administrators
  • 551 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 14 November 2011 - 09:13 AM

K boys... let's keep this thread on track and refrain from any personal jabs. Thanks.
  • 0
Site Founder, Web Developer/Entrepreneur, and work from home Dad.
Listen to The Maritime Outdoorsman Podcast Show
Learn more about me at www.DaveDoggett.com

#17 Tim

Tim

    Advanced Member

  • Field Editor
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 14 November 2011 - 10:30 AM

Actually yes I do think they are doing something, and we agree it is not enough. But Inland fisheries has made the first step, they have acknowledged that the spread SMB and CP are a serious problem. That is something, and I will support any steps in a positive direction towards a solution to the continued spread of invasives. Do I see this alone as ultimately controlling the spread of invasives, no but it is a barrier, another would be the fact that it is illegal to use juvenile SMB or CP as bait. These are important steps towards the goal of controlling the spread of invasives.

You are right I am not in support of an uncontrolled sport fishery in Nova Scotia that threatens native aquatic species, and I belong to several organizations that have similar views on the threat of the continued spread of invasives. In the spirit of transparency you may want to mention Scott that you sit on the Board of Directors for RBANS, and I believe that the R stands for Responsible. I would have thought that RBANS would have seen this as a responsible step towards controlling the spread of invasives. Hopefully yours is a personal opinion and not one shared by RBANS as a whole.
  • 0
Stop Aquatic Invasives! Spread the word, not the species.

#18 pmorris

pmorris

    Levity Consultant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1787 posts
  • LocationBedford, NS

Posted 14 November 2011 - 11:55 AM

One of the arguments often put forth on these forums about any proposed or enacted regulations is that they will never be 100% effective for a number of reasons, including the fact that enforcement can never be perfect. I agree completely with this point of view!

However, I am astounded when the proponent of the position then uses the argument to say that the proposed regulations should therefore not be implemented. I don't see the logic whatsoever.

If there was any logic in the argument, we might as well do away with every law in the land. Why have speed limits when people are speeding all the time and only a minority get caught? Theft should be legalized because we all know of instances where thieves got away with their crimes. And let's do the same with murder, because the cops haven't been able to solve all of them.

In short, you'll never get 100% effectiveness or enforcement of any law. It's just that a partially lawful society is a much better place to be than a lawless society.

Paul
  • 3

I started reading a book about anti-gravity and I just couldn't put it down.


#19 scottw

scottw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 14 November 2011 - 04:28 PM

Actually yes I do think they are doing something, and we agree it is not enough. But Inland fisheries has made the first step, they have acknowledged that the spread SMB and CP are a serious problem. That is something, and I will support any steps in a positive direction towards a solution to the continued spread of invasives. Do I see this alone as ultimately controlling the spread of invasives, no but it is a barrier, another would be the fact that it is illegal to use juvenile SMB or CP as bait. These are important steps towards the goal of controlling the spread of invasives.

You are right I am not in support of an uncontrolled sport fishery in Nova Scotia that threatens native aquatic species, and I belong to several organizations that have similar views on the threat of the continued spread of invasives. In the spirit of transparency you may want to mention Scott that you sit on the Board of Directors for RBANS, and I believe that the R stands for Responsible. I would have thought that RBANS would have seen this as a responsible step towards controlling the spread of invasives. Hopefully yours is a personal opinion and not one shared by RBANS as a whole.

I speak for myself and not for RBANS. RBANS supports any initiative that stops the spread of non-native fish, as do I. I do find it odd that you have such an interest in RBANS and myself.
I'm all for doing something that works. I'm NOT in favor of making up legislation for the sake of being able to say "we did something". This province is buried under in legislation; lets not add to it unless it's something effective.
And Paul, I'm referring to the livewell portion of the legislation only. Show me an effective regulation, and I'll get behind it. Your comment of supporting a legislation that's "not 100% effective" realistically should read "completely ineffective" when referring to the livewell legislation.
  • 0

#20 scottw

scottw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 14 November 2011 - 04:37 PM

Listen all:
the intentional spread of bass and pickerel is/was the work of a very, very few people. Why should the law abiding people be the ones to pay the price? We have (or had, thank goodness) an ineffective long gun registration shoved down our throats because of the wishes of "city people" that were sick of drug related, and other crime. We didn't do anything wrong, but gun owners were made the scapegoat.
I brought up a very highly likely cause of the spread of non-native species; live bait (minnow) fishing. Funny how few people commented positively in support of a ban on live minnow fishing.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users