New Legislation Aims To Prevent Spread Of Invasives - Page 2 - 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

#21 LSF

LSF

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 539 posts
  • LocationMiddleton

Posted 14 November 2011 - 05:27 PM

I'm all for a ban on live bait minnows, worms anything live as well as single barbless hooks on any and all lures/flies.......I also support the ban on transportation of live fishh including the livewell clause.....these recomendations/laws were brought forward with the help of a few good members and stafff from this site!!
  • 0

#22 scottw

scottw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 14 November 2011 - 05:34 PM

Look, I'm not trying to offend anyone, I'm just stating my opinion, and fell under attack for it.
I've seen so much bad and ineffective legislation (affecting all facets of life) come down the path in the past 50 years, and once it's there it's extremely hard to get it reversed.
If CO's find someone transporting non-native fish away from the waters where they originated, fine them $10,000. I don't have any issue with that, as it's effective. The livewell reg is as I stated in a post above; it's to make it easy for enforcement to put in time. Unfortunately the fish smugglers will continue to move fish.
  • 0

#23 Tim

Tim

    Advanced Member

  • Field Editor
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 14 November 2011 - 05:59 PM

Scott, I follow many of the sport fishing organizations and the comments made by their influential members. NSSA, ASF, TNS, TUC, CASA, RBANS, and NSFAH are all members of the Inland Fisheries Advisory Committee and as such have the ability to influence managers and regulators of this province. RBANS just happens to be the newest member. As the newest member of the IFAC and a group that has splintered away from the other established SMB (and might I add responsible) association on the IFAC, I find it only prudent to determine how this group intends to lobby government with regards to the management of our sport fishery and I would encourage other anglers to do the same, especially if they have joined and are being represented by this association. As a director of RBANS I would have thought that you would welcome anglers to take an interest in the opinions of not only RBANS but that of its directors.
  • 0
Stop Aquatic Invasives! Spread the word, not the species.

#24 scottw

scottw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 14 November 2011 - 06:12 PM

Scott, I follow many of the sport fishing organizations and the comments made by their influential members. NSSA, ASF, TNS, TUC, CASA, RBANS, and NSFAH are all members of the Inland Fisheries Advisory Committee and as such have the ability to influence managers and regulators of this province. RBANS just happens to be the newest member. As the newest member of the IFAC and a group that has splintered away from the other established SMB (and might I add responsible) association on the IFAC, I find it only prudent to determine how this group intends to lobby government with regards to the management of our sport fishery and I would encourage other anglers to do the same, especially if they have joined and are being represented by this association. As a director of RBANS I would have thought that you would welcome anglers to take an interest in the opinions of not only RBANS but that of its directors.

Interesting tone, Tim. The underlying inference speak volumes.
I support and wish to protect the entire sport-fishery. I don't believe you can say the same.
  • 0

#25 Tim

Tim

    Advanced Member

  • Field Editor
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 14 November 2011 - 06:35 PM

Good to see you are paying attention. I am pleased that you wish to support and protect native aquatic species, though I have followed your opinions for quite some time and I must admit I am a wee bit skeptical. Hopefully you can help me alleviate that skepticism in the future. You are correct if you mean that I do not support the protection of an invasive species to the detriment of native aquatic species. The SMB sport fishery is established and not going anywhere.....but the bass keep on moving. CASA has proven that it would like to be apart of the solution, if that is the future direction of the SMB sport fishery then I can see common ground. IMO RBANS is still an unknown and worth keeping an eye on. Thanks Scott if nothing else you have provided some insight.
  • 0
Stop Aquatic Invasives! Spread the word, not the species.

#26 Perry

Perry

    Moderator

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1353 posts

Posted 14 November 2011 - 07:27 PM

Some good thoughts here. I believe the livewell issue has more to do with the spread of invasives then some members give it credit. I dont think the inspection on the water as much as it changes the methods some anglers fish. What it does do is allow CO's to lay a charge at the boat launch which they couldn't before.Live fish cant be removed by anglers so it nips the problem in the bud.This site produced a document that was forwarded to NSDF for their consideration. It was done to put a positive approach to the problem of the spread of invasives as pointed out by LSF. These recomendations are now being brought forward and some will become law. Something that all who took part should be proud of.
This site wecolmes all anglers. Some fish smallmouths, some trout, some salmon etc. Some fish all species useing all legal methods some do not out of their own preference. Because of the demographics of the members we as members can see how each species affect the other and the same with anglers. It is only through a process of anglers of all different species that we can push for changes that respect all anglers. This issue of the spread of invasives has been a "Hot Button" issue for some time and many members have left because of it, but those that chose to stay, changes that hopefully will have a positive outcome will make the lively discussion in the past and in the future worth while.
  • 3

Just because you fish a lot doen't mean you are great or even good. It just means you fish a lot!!


#27 girlfisher

girlfisher

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1687 posts
  • LocationSand Beach

Posted 14 November 2011 - 08:07 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?
.

Any opinions?

Terran


or put ice and beer in them :D


but seriously if it does slow down the spead I guess it is worth the sacrifice but I do undetrstand what you are saying , that is if you don't have enough for a feed you'd rather release it. I guess the concern is that trout don't do so well with this method and ppl would use the loop hole to cycle trout. So whether right or wrong the protection of trout and trout waters trumps everything else. Personally I like the kill or release idea I hate it when I see fish flopping and suffocating on the ice or alive on a stringer it seems torturous, I know live wells are different but I guess they don't want to make exceptions and make things complicated.

gf
  • 0
please practice a sustainable harvest

#28 girlfisher

girlfisher

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1687 posts
  • LocationSand Beach

Posted 14 November 2011 - 08:38 PM

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.


good post maybe put up your maps highlighting where they now are it is a real eyeopener
  • 0
please practice a sustainable harvest

#29 girlfisher

girlfisher

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1687 posts
  • LocationSand Beach

Posted 14 November 2011 - 08:43 PM

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

great and insightful post as usual paul
  • 0
please practice a sustainable harvest

#30 scottw

scottw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 14 November 2011 - 08:53 PM

Well, I'm glad to see that all the untouched trout and salmon watersheds are now safe from SMB and CP thanks to the work of a few people on this board.
Time will tell who was right and who was wrong. I hope I'm the one that's wrong, but common sense and the realities of the situation indicate that I will be correct.
  • 0

#31 Perry

Perry

    Moderator

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1353 posts

Posted 14 November 2011 - 09:17 PM

Scott, They are not safe and that I guess is the point.
  • 1

Just because you fish a lot doen't mean you are great or even good. It just means you fish a lot!!


#32 girlfisher

girlfisher

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1687 posts
  • LocationSand Beach

Posted 14 November 2011 - 09:21 PM

Scott, They are not safe and that I guess is the point.

right on
  • 0
please practice a sustainable harvest

#33 Lee

Lee

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 207 posts
  • LocationPort Hawkesbury

Posted 15 November 2011 - 08:47 AM

Well, I'm glad to see that all the untouched trout and salmon watersheds are now safe from SMB and CP thanks to the work of a few people on this board.
Time will tell who was right and who was wrong. I hope I'm the one that's wrong, but common sense and the realities of the situation indicate that I will be correct.

So what is your suggestion? Other than banning live bait, what would you do? Also, banning live bait isn't going to stop these people from doing this, so what do you achieve? If we leave the law as is and one of these "bucket biologists" has a livewell/cooler full of bass or pickerel swimming around, then nothing can be done. I know the proposed regs are not perfect, but at least the COs have a few more tools to try and stop the spread.
Does it really mean that much to you to have a livewell full of bass? Take pictures-measure and release them, or keep a few for lunch. Sounds, to me, like a minor inconvenience. Bass don't have a 100% survival rate in livewells either, do they?, so maybe you're doing them a favor as well.
  • 1
Even a fish wouldn't get into trouble if he kept his mouth shut.

#34 dave

dave

    Admin

  • Administrators
  • 551 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 15 November 2011 - 02:15 PM

...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.

...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.


Very well put Paul. I agree fully and personally applaud any and all efforts put in place that can help to discourage and possibly prevent the spread of all invasive species.

-dave
  • 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

#35 scottw

scottw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 15 November 2011 - 04:25 PM

Very well put Paul. I agree fully and personally applaud any and all efforts put in place that can help to discourage and possibly prevent the spread of all invasive species.

-dave

So any and all efforts are welcome? To what extent? What you might feel is reasonable, may be just a starting point to the next guy.
What percentage rate of success do you see coming from livewell regulations?
My suggestion is fines that are high enough to be a deterent, and high enough to encourage his/her buddies to rat them out. And the aforementioned ban on live minnows for bait.
There are a couple of people here that probably wouldn't support an effective initiative such as that. It doesn't target their scapegoat of choice.
As I said earlier, if in 10-20 years natural resource terrorists have spread invasives over the entire province, then my claim of regulatory ineffectiveness was correct. The criminals continued unfettered regardless of the new regs, and all we have to show for it is more regulations.
  • 1

#36 Tim

Tim

    Advanced Member

  • Field Editor
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 05:52 PM

Scott, The banning of live minnows was one of the suggestions put forward to NSFA by the members of this site in the document titled "NovaScotia Fishing.com members’ input on aquatic invasive species (AIS)" I personally would have supported such legislation. These are the comments that were received by NSFA on the possibility of banning live minnows in red:

Suggested management techniques: Ban the use of live “minnows” and/or minnow traps


In place in some jurisdictions (ex. Saskatchewan does not allow live bait)
Opportunity: Develop a small experiment to assess the passive capture of bass and pickerel while attempting to capture bait for the purposes of angling
Opportunity: Educational materials around bait (eg. what you can and connot use, proper disposal, etc.)



Perceived advantages: Many introductions may be unintentional and attributable to the use and release of “minnows” that are young invasives


The use of live fish as bait in freshwater in NS is thought to be minimal compared to other areas. Young smallmouth bass and chain pickerel are not readily caught in minnow traps (based on captures from the lake survey program).

Currently you must release bait into the water body in which it was caught. It is illegal to release it elsewhere or to even use species of concern as bait (eg. bass, pickerel, perch, bullheads, etc)

Perceived disadvantages: Unpopularity among live-bait anglers; economic disadvantage to providers of live bait.


NS does not have an active live bait industry or legislation that regulates it (Ontario does).
  • 0
Stop Aquatic Invasives! Spread the word, not the species.

#37 scottw

scottw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 15 November 2011 - 06:40 PM

Good info!
I've got to try the minnow trap on bass minnows; I assumed that they would come to bread as bait same as any other minnow.
  • 0

#38 Terran

Terran

    To do nothing is unacceptable.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2726 posts
  • LocationHRM

Posted 16 November 2011 - 10:48 PM

Hey Scottw,

I started this topic to generate discussion about the new legislation and man did it do that. I have been following the thread closely. I think you have made some excellent points.

In a perfect world, where there was sufficient enforcement to properly police the Province, I believe this legislation might be more effective. Truth is that you barely get so much as a license check in the run of a year. I've called DNR regarding illegal activities only to be told that they are not in my area and I should call...

It would have been nice if they would have considered the anglers on the shore or water of a system. I don't feel it would have weakened the legislations effectiveness or the ability of enforcement to properly take action. I don't see it as a loophole if enforcement had a stronger presence.

I absolutely agree with your suggestion that the fines need to be far stiffer in order to act as a strong deterent. I don't think any law abiding angler wishes for the illegal introduction of an invasive species into new waters. This is part of the issue. It isn't law abiding anglers who are doing this. These people are basically criminals and as such will care little how many new legislations are passed. Making it easier for enforcement means little to them.

What is needed, is more enforcement officers and substantially higher fines. They could ban every law abiding angler, from every lake, river, stream, brook, pond and puddle and these a**holes will continue to come up with ways to "get er done".

That being said, as a law abiding angler, I will certainly conduct myself according to the new rules; should this legislation be passed.

Take care,

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
 


#39 Perry

Perry

    Moderator

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1353 posts

Posted 17 November 2011 - 10:57 AM

Scott, bass are a true preditor and will only feed on living things. When they are fry they feed on plankton but when they are juveniles they feed on living forage. I was in Texas a few years back and visited the rearing facilities for stocking bass. The rearing ponds were fertilizered and plankton were allowed to build up, then the up-swimming fry were intoduced. They grew to juveniles and then the pond was emptied thru a bottom gate and loaded into trucks to stock. Blue gills, and crappies were raised to feed the brood stock. They could not be raised beyound the fry stage because liveing forage would have to be raised to feed them. A minnow trap would not work for bass as they would not be attracted to bread. No idea about pickeral thou.
  • 0

Just because you fish a lot doen't mean you are great or even good. It just means you fish a lot!!


#40 scottw

scottw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 17 November 2011 - 07:01 PM

Terran, thanks for your comments.
Perry, thanks for the info on bass minnows; I never would have thought that bass minnows acted any different from any others.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users