This approach doesn’t seem…

This approach doesn’t seem very fair or well-balanced. For the smallest cohort of anglers on the lake, by far, Canadians, we are proposing to cut the catch limit in half. For the largest cohort of anglers on the lake, by far, Americans, we are proposing to leave the catch limits unchanged. It just doesn’t make sense that this would be a strategy to reduce fishing pressure in a significant way. The largest cohort should have catch limits reduced accordingly if we expect any result. If the argument being made is that it is more the change in size limits that is the management tool, which it seems to be if we are not making any changes to the catch limits of the largest fishing cohort, then why not just leave the catch limits for Canadians unchanged since it is a very small pressure in the first place, and let the change in size limits work its magic.

This isn’t intended to specifically target our friends in the US, but is simply a matter of managing two fishing cohorts, Americans and Canadians. We have to at least make changes proportionally in each demographic if we expect positive results. Leaving the catch limits of the largest cohort unchanged and reducing the smallest cohort seems a backwards approach.

How about cutting the limits of each demographic by one fish; Canadians are reduced from 4 to 3 fish, and Americans from 2 to 1. That would be more fair, and have a significant impact on the ecosystem. I don’t think that reducing the catch limit by 1 fish will have much impact on the throngs of Americans coming here to fish. And even if it does, isn’t that the point to some extent. We need to reduce the fishing pressure on the lake, and Americans exert the vast majority of that pressure. For meaningful improvements in the fishery we need either less people fishing on the lake, or fewer fish being kept. We can’t have our walleye and eat them too. Something has to give, at least a little. We have too many lodges with too many clients being led by professional guides, and too many day-trippers, all catching too many fish. Again, this isn’t a slam against our US friends or the lodges, it is simply that demographic that is too large and it has to be reined in a bit if the lake is to survive.

The current proposal does nothing, absolutely nothing, to reduce the numbers of fishermen or the catch limits of that largest demographic, but instead puts all the cuts onto the small cohort of Canadian anglers, a cohort so small that it seems pointless to reduce their catch limits if we aren’t going to reduce catch limits of the large cohort. This seems quite unfair, and unproductive in terms of improving the fishery.

Have we considered the sauger population in this? Maybe it’s just me, but the lake seems to be teeming with small sauger lately. Why not have a separate and fairly liberal catch limit for sauger, for those that just want a ‘walleye’ lunch? It would reduce the numbers of little sauger, which might help the walleye. I don’t know if that’s viable, or even true; I don’t have the data to back it up, but our fisheries biologists might.