The proposed bait fish…

The proposed bait fish regulations will cause significant problems with compliuance and enforcement in the southeastern portion of Fisheries Management Zone 15 (Bait management Zone E). The lakes in this area are interconnected and comprise an intergrated ecosystem. Anglers have historically used baitfish obtained on one side of the imaginary dividing line for use on the other side without importation of invasive species for generations. The line drawn between baitfish Zone E and F is the same as the southern boundry for fisheries management Zone 15 and appears to follow political rather than ecosystem boundries. People who fish the area comprising the Madawaska watershed will find they will need bait from two different zones to legally fish a relatively small area of the same watershed.

We feel there will be compliance issues under a regulation that will make no sense to angles who fish this area. Most regulations work effectively when the public buys in to the concept. While most anglers understand and support the idea of not moving bait out of the area where it was obtained they will have difficulty in supporting that area being defined by a county line, particularly Renfrew County. For example, Norcan Lake which flows directly and without disruption into the Madawaska River, lies in bait Zone F while the river itself is in Zone E. There are numerous similar examples from this area. Add to this the reality that most of the outlets for purchasing bait in this area are in Zone E with few to none nearby in Zone F. The average angler will find it difficult to understand why bait he purchased in Calabogie is not legal in nearby Norcan Lake. Again, I use this one specific example but there are others across this southern boundry. There needs to be a buffer zone for enforcement between Zones E and F similar to what is allowed in the north. This will make the job of MNRF staff far easier for enforcement as well as making better sense to the angling public. It also makes sense environmentally.

[Original Comment ID: 209647]