Draft Fisheries Management Plan for Fisheries Management ... · the Strategic Plan for Ontario...

Draft Fisheries Management Plan for Fisheries Management Zone 4 November 2012

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Table of Contents Titles and Approval.........................................................................................................1

1.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................2 2.0 Strategic Direction, Guiding Principles and Roles and Responsibilities...2 3.0 Description of Fisheries Management Zone 4 ..............................................5

3.1 Geographic Description.................................................................................8 3.2 Biological Description ....................................................................................8 3.3 Access Description........................................................................................9 3.4 Exploitation Description...............................................................................10

4.0 Broad Fisheries Management Goal for FMZ 4 ............................................11 5.0 Issues, Challenges and Proposed Management Actions..........................11

5.1 Exploitation of Fisheries Resources ............................................................13 5.1.1 Walleye...............................................................................................14 5.1.2 Northern Pike......................................................................................20 5.1.3 Lake Trout ..........................................................................................28 5.1.4 Smallmouth Bass................................................................................34 5.1.5 Brook Trout.........................................................................................44 5.1.6 Other Species.....................................................................................48

5.2 Exceptions..................................................................................................49 5.2.1 Cedar River Watershed Sanctuary Dates...........................................50 5.2.2 Areas of Special Interest ....................................................................50 5.2.1.1 Watcomb Lake Chain .........................................................................50 5.2.1.2 Sydney Lake Area ..............................................................................52

5.3 Habitat Management ..................................................................................54 5.4 Invasive Species.........................................................................................57 5.5 Education....................................................................................................59 5.6 Commercial Fishing....................................................................................61

6.0 Public and Aboriginal Community Involvement.........................................64 6.1 Fisheries Management Zone 4 Advisory Council ........................................64 6.2 Aboriginal Community Involvement .............................................................65 6.3 Public Consultation Program.......................................................................65

6.3.1 Background Report Invitation to Participate ........................................65 6.3.2 Draft Plan Consultation........................................................................66

6.3.3 Final Plan Inspection ...........................................................................66 7.0 Ongoing Commitment to Monitoring..........................................................66 8.0 Review and Amendment of the Fisheries Management Plan...................67 9.0 Implementation Plan ....................................................................................67

References.....................................................................................................................69 Appendices....................................................................................................................73

Appendix 1.0..............................................................................................................73

Titles and Approval

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN

For

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 4

Encompassing Portions of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Administrative Districts of Dryden, Sioux Lookout, Red Lake, Kenora and Thunder Bay

I certify that this plan has been prepared using the best available science and is consistent with accepted fisheries management principles. I further certify that this plan is consistent with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources strategic direction, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Statement of Environmental Values and direction from other sources. Thus, I recommend this fisheries management plan be approved for implementation. Recommended by: ____________________________________________________ Kelvin Davenport (A/ Dryden District Manager) (Date) Recommended by: ____________________________________________________ Bob David (Sioux Lookout District Manager) (Date) Recommended by: ____________________________________________________ Graeme Swanwick (Red Lake District Manager) (Date) Recommended by: ____________________________________________________ Deb Weedon (Kenora District Manager) (Date) Recommended by: ____________________________________________________ Frank Miklas (Thunder Bay District Manager) (Date) Approved by: ____________________________________________________ Allan Willcocks (Date) (Regional Director, Northwest Region)

Draft Fisheries Management Plan for Fisheries Management Zone 4 2

1.0 Introduction The FMZ 4 Fisheries Management Plan was developed by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) with input and advice from the FMZ 4 Advisory Council. The plan identifies issues that are key to resource sustainability within FMZ 4; establishes management objectives for the major species and fisheries; and recommends actions and strategies to achieve these objectives. These management objectives are achievable within the biological capacity of FMZ 4 and balance the needs and requests of the various users of the fishery resources. In addition, as part of the process of developing this management plan, OMNR committed to reviewing the existing FMZ 4 angling regulations to determine their compatibility with the identified management objectives and evaluating the existing regulation exceptions to determine whether they are still required. This plan will apply to all water bodies within FMZ 4, with the exception of the following Specially Designated Waters (SDW): Red Lake/Gullrock Lake, Lac Seul, Big Vermilion Lake, Pelican Lake, Botsford Lake, Abram Lake, and Minnitaki Lake. SDWs will develop individual lake management plans with management objections, actions and monitoring strategies that reflect the fisheries resources of these water bodies. Where appropriate, FMZ 4 management objectives, actions and strategies will be incorporated into these individual lake plans. The FMZ 4 Fisheries Management Plan will guide the management of fisheries resources within FMZ 4 for the next ten years with an internal review after five years. The achievement of management objectives and appropriateness of management actions and strategies will be evaluated. Fisheries Management Plans are expected to be flexible and dynamic and maybe amended if required. 2.0 Strategic Direction, Guiding Principles and Roles and

Responsibilities In 2005, A New Ecological Framework for Recreational Fisheries Management in Ontario (OMNR, 2005a) was approved to ensure fisheries resource sustainability and to optimize angling opportunities. The approach described in the “framework” is consistent with the OMNR strategic direction as outlined in Our Sustainable Future (OMNR, 2011a), Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy, 2011: Renewing our Commitment to Protecting What Sustains Us (Ontario Biodiversity Council, 2011), and with the principles stated in the Strategic Plan for Ontario Fisheries (OMNR, 1992). The Ecological Framework for Recreational Fisheries Management in Ontario (EFFM) focussed on four key areas: 1) new ecological fisheries management zones; 2) managing and monitoring at the broader landscape level; 3) enhanced stewardship; and 4) regular reporting on the state of fisheries in Ontario. Consistent with the first key area of the EFFM, FMZ 4 was one of 20 zones created as a new spatial unit for fisheries management planning across the province. The new boundaries are based on ecological factors and angler use patterns, such as: climate


(growing degree days), watersheds, fishing pressure, and accessibility (i.e. road networks. The Broadscale Monitoring (BsM) program illustrates OMNR’s commitment to mange and monitor fisheries at the landscape level. In the summer or 2009, this landscape level monitoring program was conducted throughout FMZ 4 and is scheduled to be repeated in five years. BsM not only provides a current status of the fisheries resources across the Zone, but will allow managers to detect changes over time in population status and fishing effort, and determine whether we are meeting our fisheries management objectives. The third component of the EFFM framework is enhanced stewardship. The Fisheries Advisory Council for FMZ 4, comprised of representatives from stakeholder groups and Aboriginal communities, provided advice to OMNR at all stages in the preparation of this management plan. Extensive consultation with sportsman’s groups, the tourism industry and local citizens committees occurred throughout the development of the plan. Aboriginal involvement was strongly encouraged and sought. Information was made broadly available through public and stakeholder meetings and staffed displays at trade shows and local events. A summary of the public consultation program is provided in Section 6.0. The completion of the Background Information for the Development of a Fisheries Management Plan in Fisheries Management Zone 4 (also referred to as ‘Background Report’) represents OMNR’s first contribution to reporting on the state of the fisheries in FMZ 4. The background document is a synthesis of all past information, and provides a status of the resource, identifies data deficiencies, and sets biological boundaries for major species, in terms of present status and potential expectations. From this point on, BsM will provide timely and regular reports on the status of the fisheries in FMZ 4. This information will be used by fisheries managers and the Advisory Council to determine whether fisheries management objectives are being achieved and if additional actions or strategies are required. Consideration of the strategic direction in the above noted policy documents resulted in the establishment of a set of 15 guiding principles. During the deliberations by the Advisory Council, proposed management goals, objectives, and actions were compared to the list of guiding principles to ensure that they were consistent. The principles that were used to develop this fisheries management plan are also important during plan implementation to guide managers with decision making in those situations that are not specifically addressed by this plan. Guiding Principles Ecological Approach: An ecological approach to fisheries management will be followed to ensure conservation and use of the resource in a sustainable manner. Landscape Level Management: Fisheries will be managed on a landscape scale – the FMZ scale. Individual lake management is discouraged other than in the context of water bodies specially designated by OMNR (e.g. the Specially Designated Waters of Lac Seul, Red Lake and Minnitaki Lake).

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@letsfish/documents/document/stdprod_068230.pdf

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@letsfish/documents/document/stdprod_068230.pdf


Balanced Resource Management: Strategies and actions will consider the ecological, economic, social and cultural benefits and costs to society, both present and future. Sustainable Development: The finite capacity of the resource is recognized in planning strategies and actions within a FMZ. Only natural resources over and above those essential for long-term sustainability requirements are available for use, enjoyment and development. Biodiversity: Fisheries management will ensure the conservation of biodiversity by committing to healthy ecosystems, protecting our native species, and sustaining genetic diversity of fisheries in the FMZ. All species in the FMZ, including non-sport fish and Species at Risk, must be considered. Natural Reproduction: Priority will be placed on native, naturally reproducing fish populations that provide predictable and sustainable benefits with minimal long-term cost to society. Hatchery-dependent fisheries will also play a role in providing fishing opportunities. Habitat Protection: The natural productive capacity of habitats for Canada’s fisheries resources will be protected and habitat will be enhanced where possible. Valuing the Resource: Stakeholders and other users will be invited to understand and appreciate the value of fisheries resources and to participate in decisions to be made by OMNR that may directly or indirectly affect aquatic ecosystem health. Responsibility: Local, regional, provincial and federal cooperation and sharing of knowledge, costs and benefits will be sought to manage fisheries at a FMZ level. Multi-Party Involvement: A wide range of stakeholders, Aboriginal peoples, and interested parties will provide fisheries management advice to ensure an open and transparent process that acknowledges their valuable role in the process. Aboriginal Interests: Ontario is committed to building better relationships with Aboriginal peoples and in involving them in decisions that affect them. Direct Action: All possible options must be considered and evolve to implementation actions that are feasible. Knowledge: The best available information will be used for FMZ-based objective setting and strategy development and implementation. Adaptive Management: FMZ’s will be managed using an adaptive management approach. Objectives will be set, monitoring will occur, results will be compared against objectives and management regimes adjusted as necessary and where possible to ensure attainment of objectives. Active adaptive management, where experimental treatments are tested, including a control, will be encouraged where FMZ Advisory Councils and OMNR have endorsed the experimental option.


Roles and Responsibilities The FMZ 4 Advisory Council is made up of representatives from First Nations communities; the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters; the commercial bait industry; the commercial fishing industry; Nature and Outdoor Tourism Ontario; environmental non-governmental organizations; youth groups, professional anglers; and resident anglers, and reflects the broad public interest in the fisheries resources of FMZ 4. The Advisory Council members provide advice and recommendations for consideration by OMNR managers on fisheries, including: the setting of FMZ-based fisheries objectives; review of monitoring and reporting results; and implementation of management actions to meet the fisheries objectives for the FMZ. The members are responsible for working with the existing groups and associations that they represent within the zone to ensure that locally based initiatives are complementary and supportive to objective setting and management at the zone level. The members also have a role in assisting the OMNR consultation processes by engaging and educating the public on fisheries management within FMZ 4. On the Advisory Council, OMNR is represented by managers and biologists from each of the Districts within FMZ 4. The responsibility of OMNR is to provide the Advisory Council with a status of the fisheries resources in FMZ 4, as described in the FMZ 4 background document (OMNR, 2010). The background document sets the biological boundaries for each major species based on past and existing use, and productive capacity. The OMNR is ultimately responsible for the sustainability of the fisheries resource and balancing allocation to the various user groups. Within the biological boundaries set by OMNR, the Advisory Council provides advice to OMNR on how to manage the resources to achieve their various expectations. 3.0 Description of Fisheries Management Zone 4 The twenty fisheries management zones in Ontario were defined by similar ecological, physical, social and economic attributes and the delineated areas are expected to react similarly to external changes, pressures and management actions. Watershed boundaries, climate, productivity, fish communities and angler usage were all considerations of the zone delineations. Fisheries Management Zone 4 extends over a large geographic range, covering an area of approximately 60,440 km2, including land and water. The Manitoba border and the eastern boundary of Woodland Caribou Provincial Park mark the western extent of the FMZ, with the western boundaries of the Brightsand River Provincial Park and Wabikimi Provincial Park defining it to the east, over 350 kilometres away. The Berens River and Cat River systems provide the north boundary, while Highway 17 and the Canadian National Railway line define the south boundary (Figure 1). Located centrally in the OMNR’s Northwest Region, FMZ 4 spans across 5 OMNR administrative Districts (Kenora, Red Lake, Dryden, Sioux Lookout and Thunder Bay), and encompasses the larger communities of Red Lake, Ear Falls, Sioux Lookout, and Ignace. A number of smaller communities, including nine First Nations: Wabaseemoong Independent Nation (Whitedog), Ochiichangwe ‘Babigo’ining (Dalles), Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishinabek (Grassy Narrows), Wabauskang First Nation, Pikangikum First Nation, Lac Seul First Nation, Saugeen First Nation, and Mishkeegugamang First Nation, are spread across the Zone along main highway


corridors. Kenora and Dryden, the Region’s largest centres, lie just to the south along the TransCanada Highway (Hwy 17). Seven lakes, or lake systems, within FMZ 4 have been identified as Specially Designated Waters (SDW); Red Lake/Gullrock Lake, Lac Seul, Big Vermilion Lake, Pelican Lake, Botsford Lake, Abram Lake and Minnitaki Lake are expected to each have lake specific management plans and monitoring strategies prepared for them, and are not managed within the scope of this plan. However, when individual SDW lake plans are developed, consideration where appropriate will be given to FMZ 4 management objectives and regulations.


Figure 1. Fisheries Management Zone 4 boundaries with Specially Designated Waterbodies identified.


3.1 Geographic Description Similar to the rest of Canada, the current pattern of landform features, surface geology and distribution of lakes and rivers across FMZ 4 was defined by the actions of glaciers which also influenced the fish communities that we see today. Fisheries Management Zone 4 is dominated by glacial till and glaciofluvial morainal deposits (composed of sand, gravel and boulders) and bedrock landforms. Both are generally well distributed and together constitute almost 75% of the underlying substrate, with morainal features being more common in the eastern half of FMZ 4 and bedrock more common in the west. FMZ 4 typifies the abundance and wide range of aquatic habitat types found in Northwestern Ontario. Over 22,500 lakes and 44,315 kilometres of rivers and streams cover more than 17% of the total area in permanent water, with an additional 5% in associated wetlands. Of that, the seven SDW’s account for almost 3% of the total area of the Zone, with Lac Seul standing out as the largest waterbody in FMZ 4 (OMNR, 2010). Most of FMZ 4 falls within the Nelson River primary watershed. Water from approximately 80% of the land base flows westward via the English River and some smaller systems to the Winnipeg River, Lake Winnipeg, then via the Nelson River to Hudson Bay. The remaining eastern and northeastern portions of the Zone contribute to the Hudson-James Bay primary watershed, with all water eventually flowing north to Hudson Bay and James Bay. Within this area lies a small portion of the Albany River watershed. FMZ 4 contains over 40,000 kilometres of rivers and streams that make up an important part of the total water area of FMZ 4. The major rivers and streams that connect the interior of FMZ 4 flow primarily to Lake Winnipeg include the Winnipeg River, English River, Berens River and Shabumeni River systems (OMNR, 2010). These waterbodies are significant features in FMZ 4 in supporting not only important populations of major sportfish species, but also lake sturgeon which is classified as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, 2007. 3.2 Biological Description The biological description of the fisheries resource in FMZ 4 is a critical component of the background report (OMNR, 2010). Understanding the diversity and biological status of fisheries resources, and factors that affect that resource, is crucial to producing a sound and effective Fisheries Management Plan. Biodiversity refers to the variety of life as expressed through genes, species and ecosystems, which is shaped by ecological and evolutionary processes. Fisheries Management Zone 4 is known to have at least 46 species of freshwater fish that are widely distributed throughout the Zone. The most common sport fish species within FMZ 4 include walleye, northern pike, lake trout, yellow perch, smallmouth bass, muskellunge, and lake whitefish. These species are distributed across the landscape of FMZ 4 in lakes, streams and rivers. In the northeast corner of FMZ 4 lies a small portion


of the Albany River watershed where the only known native brook trout populations in FMZ 4 exist. The productive capacity (or amount of fish that can be produced) of waterbodies is an important biological concept in the management of fish populations. The capacity of lakes, rivers, and streams to produce fish is directly linked to the productivity of that waterbody. Lake shape, size and depth as well as the chemical and thermal characteristics all affect the amount of fish a waterbody can support. Lakes in FMZ 4 are generally characterized as having intermediate depth; medium mean surface area; stained water; and warm thermal regime (Cano and Parker, 2007). When considered together, the characteristics of FMZ 4 lakes indicate a higher productivity than lakes in adjacent Zone 5 and Zone 6. A critical part of fisheries management involves knowing the current status and health of fish populations, as well as any limitations or potentials that may exist based on past and current exploitation, and the productive capacity of FMZ 4. This data was summarized in the Background Report (OMNR 2010) and was used to support the development of fisheries management objectives for FMZ 4 on non-SDW lakes. In cases where information was lacking, data from SDW lakes was included as well. Broadscale Monitoring (BSM) of FMZ 4 was conducted in 2009; however analysis from the 2009 BSM were not available during the development of this plan. When the analysis has been completed and reported on, this data will be used to determine and describe the appropriate Indicators, Benchmarks and Targets related to species exploitation objectives. 3.3 Access Description In general, road-based access to the fisheries of FMZ 4 is greatest in the southern portions of the Zone. Road density decreases towards the north (as well as in a couple of areas on the eastern and western edges), leaving large remote regions that are primarily accessed by air and utilized by the fly-in tourism industry. Major highways that provide primary access include: 17, 105, 72 and 599. Over 28,000 km of roads extend from these main corridors, approximately two thirds of which are gravel and classified as tertiary or operational roads. Most of these roads were built to provide access for forest management companies, but now also provide anglers with more direct routes to fishing opportunities. Over 8000 lakes in FMZ 4 are currently within 500m of a road, a distance that is considered accessible by anglers or other resource users. With increased use of all terrain vehicles (ATVs), the zone of influence of road-based users may now be much wider than in the past. Increased access across the FMZ does diffuse angler effort over a larger area, making higher levels of effort sustainable, but can reduce angling quality on previously remote lakes. There is a fine balance between accessibility and diffusion of fishing effort, to prevent over-exploitation and maintain angling quality. Over three quarters of the land base within FMZ 4 is Crown land, with approximately 3% of that area located within Provincial Parks and other protected areas. Areas of private or patent land are generally small but widespread across FMZ 4. Private land is usually found near communities or associated with mining claims, with the exception of the large Wagner Blocks in the Dryden District which account for approximately one third of all


private land. Five MNR District offices share responsibility to manage the fisheries resources, including access, within FMZ 4. 3.4 Exploitation Description The fisheries in FMZ 4 are utilized by Aboriginal communities for subsistence and ceremonial harvest; by resident and non-resident sportfish anglers; by resource-based tourist outfitters; by the commercial baitfish industry, and to a lesser degree by the commercial food fishing industry. The waterbodies and fisheries of FMZ 4 have significant importance to Aboriginal communities within and around FMZ 4. The abundance of waterbodies and diversity of fish species found within FMZ 4 provide First Nations communities with resources for subsistence living, an important component of traditional land use, in addition to social and spiritual significance which are unique to each community (OMNR, 2010). Many community members also benefit financially from these resources through their involvement in the tourist and commercial food fishing industries. There are nine First Nations communities within Fisheries Management Zone 4. These communities include Whitedog First Nation Wabaseemoong Independent Nation (Whitedog), Ochiichangwe ‘Babigo’ining (Dalles), Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishinabek (Grassy Narrows), Wabauskang First Nation, Pikangikum First Nation, Lac Seul First Nation, Saugeen First Nation, and Mishkeegugamang First Nation (Figure 1). Other First Nation communities outside of FMZ 4 may have traditional use areas within the Zone; however, these areas are not well defined. FMZ 4 includes portions of three treaty areas including Treaty 3, Treaty 5 and Treaty 9 (OMNR, 2010). Due to the overall high quality of fisheries, good access and abundance of fishing opportunities in FMZ 4, many waterbodies within the Zone are popular destinations for Ontario resident, Canadian resident (those residing outside of Ontario) and non-Canadian resident anglers. Angling by these residency groups remains primarily a consumptive use of the fisheries resources (OMNR 2010). According to the 2005 national recreational fishing survey, the majority of the fishing effort (84%) in FMZ 4 resulted from angling by non-Canadian residents. Ontario residents contributed 14% of the total angling effort, followed by Canadian resident anglers who only contributed 2%. Of the Canadian residents fishing in the Zone, 84% originate from Manitoba (Hogg et al, 2010). Ice fishing accounts for approximately 8% of the total angling effort in FMZ 4 (Hogg et al, 2010). Ontario resident anglers contribute 75% of the ice fishing effort, with non-Canadian residents exerting 21% of the effort. Canadian residents only account for 4% of the total ice fishing effort, indicating their angling activity occurs primarily in the open water season. The 2005 survey indicates the fishing industry contributes over $133 million to the FMZ 4 economy. Non-Canadian residents account for 84% of these expenditures, confirming the importance of these anglers to the tourism industry and local communities. The majority of non-Canadian residents fishing in FMZ 4 utilized the services of the resource based tourist outfitters. The resource-based tourism industry is well developed within


FMZ 4 with approximately 104 main base lodges and 211 outpost camps. These facilities include drive-to facilities and remote fly-in or boat-in facilities (Hogg et al, 2010). There are 306 commercial baitfish harvest blocks in FMZ 4, all of which are currently allocated. Utilization is divided between regular harvesters, tourist harvesters, regular dealers and tourist dealers (OMNR, 2010). Baitfish harvesting is a valuable business within FMZ 4, but there is currently no estimate of its economic contribution to FMZ 4. Commercial food fishing in FMZ 4 exists primarily for lake whitefish (88% of harvest), and to a lesser extent for northern pike, walleye, and yellow perch on a small number of lakes within the Zone. There is a declining trend in active commercial fisheries within Northwestern Ontario. At present there are a total of twenty seven commercial licences in FMZ 4, nineteen of which are active and eight of which are inactive. Further information on the commercial food fishing industry is found in Section 5.6. 4.0 Broad Fisheries Management Goal for FMZ 4 The fisheries management goals for FMZ 4 are: a. To optimize social, cultural and economic opportunities and values derived through

the biologically sustainable use of aquatic resources; and b. To protect genetic, species and ecosystem diversity within FMZ 4. Part a) of the broad management goal incorporates the concept that there are biological limits to the use of fisheries resources. Unless use of the fisheries resources is biologically sustainable, people are unable to derive social, cultural or economic benefits and opportunities over the long term. Part b) recognizes that there is a hierarchy of biological diversity that needs to be considered and protected. It is this hierarchy which encompasses genetic, species and ecosystem diversity that contribute to the biological well being of the fisheries resources in FMZ 4. 5.0 Issues, Challenges and Proposed Management Actions Management Issues and Challenges The FMZ 4 Advisory Council, in cooperation with OMNR, undertook an extensive discussion of the management issues and challenges facing the fisheries resources in FMZ 4. A complete summary of discussions related to these issues and challenges can be found in the Background Information for the Development of a Fisheries Management Plan in Fisheries Management Zone 4 (OMNR, 2010). Many of these management issues and challenges were related and could be grouped into four broad categories: education, habitat, exploitation, and invasive/introduced species.


Management Objectives, Indicators, Benchmarks, Targets, Management Actions and Monitoring Strategies One of the new or enhanced directions with fisheries management in Ontario is fisheries management plans will be more objective-based and measurable (where possible) than in the past. This approach will more clearly identify what fisheries managers are trying to achieve and will allow both the OMNR and the public to assess whether management actions are working to achieve the desired results. The following sections describe the management objectives, indicators, benchmarks, and targets that are associated with the various management issues and challenges. Each of these factors will be described so that the reader understands what they mean and how they interact. Where it is applicable to have indicators, benchmarks, and targets, they are found in the Summary Table for each individual species within the exploitation section (Section 5.1). Management Objectives Management objectives describe the “desired end result”. Objectives need to contribute to the broad fisheries management goal for the Zone, be consistent with strategic direction and the guiding principles, and should be measurable, where possible. Objectives can reflect biological, economic or social considerations. In some cases there may be a range of possible objectives, while in most cases there may only be one suitable objective. Biological and economic objectives can be quantified and measured, whereas some social objectives cannot be evaluated in a similar manner. In these cases, indicators, benchmarks and targets will not be included in the Summary Tables of Management Objectives, Actions and Monitoring Strategies; OMNR will measure success based on feedback from the Advisory Council and public. Indicators Indicators are specific variables that resource managers will measure so that they can determine whether or not they are achieving the management objectives. Therefore, if you have one biological objective and two social objectives then there must be a monitoring program identified for each of those three objectives that is capable of measuring whether they are being achieved. Benchmarks Benchmarks are associated with each of the indicators; they provide a frame of reference that resource managers use to determine progress towards achieving the management targets and ultimately the management objectives. Benchmarks can be used in two ways. They can describe the baseline (current state) or provide a comparative measurement to another known value (i.e. regional average).


Targets Targets translate a management objective that is described in words into one that is described in terms of numbers. It is this number that makes the objective measurable. Since they are very specific measures of an indicator, targets help the public and resource managers understand when an objective is achieved. It is important to remember that there is always some variability around these indicators. This means that when an indicator is measured it could be the same as the target, above the target or below the target. If the indicator is above or below the target number the value’s statistical significance should be evaluated. It may be that the difference is not significant and therefore the target may actually have been achieved. Regardless of whether an indicator is measured at, above, or below the target, a formal review of the objectives and management actions associated with that target is undertaken. The review may suggest that the management objectives and actions remain the same or that they be modified. This review process supports the adaptive management approach and confirms Fisheries Management Plans are expected to be flexible and dynamic, and may be amended if required. Management Actions and Monitoring Strategies Management actions (i.e. angling regulations) are implemented to achieve management objectives (i.e. prevent over-exploitation), whereas monitoring strategies (i.e. angler diaries) are used to determine appropriate management actions or evaluate existing management actions. Presently the majority of indicators, benchmarks and targets in the Summary Tables of Management Objectives, Actions and Monitoring Strategies are based on OMNR’s Broadscale Monitoring (BsM) program. The OMNR and Advisory Council have identified other monitoring strategies using citizen science to supplement the BsM program. Indicators, benchmarks and targets of the citizen science projects (i.e. volunteer angler diaries) will be developed as projects are implemented. 5.1 Exploitation of Fisheries Resources The Advisory Council and OMNR recognized the four broad categories of management issues and challenges (education, habitat, exploitation and invasive/introduced species) are not independent of each other, and in fact there are direct linkages and relationships between them. To facilitate the planning process and avoid repetition, the Advisory Council and OMNR felt establishing management objectives for each of the major fish species in FMZ 4 would provide strategies and actions to guide the management direction to address these interrelated issues. Subsequent to the release of the Ecological Framework for Recreational Fisheries Management in Ontario (EFFM), species ‘tool kits’ for managing all major sport fish species (except walleye) were developed. These ‘tool kits’ provide a series of science-based regulatory options to ensure seasons, size limits and catch limits are streamlined and simplified, and are linked to management objectives. The ‘tool kits’ contribute to achieving the goals of the EFFM by making the fishing regulations in Ontario easier to understand; increasing compliance by anglers; removing possible barriers to fishing due


to complex fishing regulations; and providing a more consistent approach to managing fisheries on a broad scale. Regulations should align to the ‘tool kit’ options unless biologists within the Zone can provide biological rationalization for alternate regulations. 5.1.1 Walleye Walleye (Sander vitreum) are tolerant of a wide range of environmental conditions, but are generally most abundant in moderate to large lakes (>100 ha) or riverine systems characterized by cool temperatures, shallow to moderate depths, extensive littoral areas, moderate turbidity and extensive areas of clean rocky substrate. Walleye populations are most successful in lakes classified as mesotrophic (Regier et al. 1969) with morphoedaphic indices (MEI) in the range of 6.0 to 7.2 (Ryder et al. 1974; Ryder and Kerr 1978). They are less abundant in oligotrophic lakes dominated by salmonids (i.e. lake trout) or eutrophic water bodies dominated by centrachids (i.e. largemouth bass). Walleye are broad cast spawners and preferred spawning habitats are shallow shoreline areas, shoals, and riffles with rocky substrate and good water circulation from wave action or currents (McMahon et al 1984). Walleye survival, growth and standing crop have been related to the abundance and availability of the small forage fishes (i.e. yellow perch, ciscoes) it utilizes as food (Groen and Schroder 1978). However, light intensity is probably the most critical factor influencing walleye distribution, abundance and feeding (McMahon et al 1984). Walleye are extremely sensitive to light and generally prefer waters with moderate turbidity where light penetration does not exceed 2 meters (Kerr et al. 1997). Walleye exhibit sexual dimorphism once they become mature. Typically males mature when they reach total length of 34 cm, whereas females spawn 1 to 2 years later at total lengths ranging from 44 to 48 cm. Females attain larger asymptotic size (mean total length = 75 cm) than males (mean total length = 63 cm). Females also exhibit lower mortality than males, and thus tend to live longer (Kerr et al. 2004). Walleye are widely distributed in waterbodies across FMZ 4. Through a combination of native distribution and past introductions, walleye are currently found in almost 1000 lakes throughout FMZ 4. They are found in a variety of lake types from shallow, stained lakes to deep, clear waterbodies with differences in biological characteristics and densities between lake types. Walleye are the most popular sport fish species in FMZ 4, accounting for the majority of angling harvest in the Zone, and provide considerable economic and social benefits to resident and non-resident anglers who target this species almost year round. The FMZ 4 Background Report revealed information on walleye populations in the Zone is limited and past surveys have focussed primarily on SDW lakes or lakes with identified problems. However, the Background Report did indicate that existing monitoring results suggests walleye populations are very healthy. Walleye abundance is the highest in FMZ 4 compared to other zones in the Northwest Region and second only to FMZ 2 for the greatest number of age classes above ten years of age and the lowest mortality. Initial results from the BsM program confirm that FMZ 4 exhibits the highest abundance


of walleye in Northwest Region. Based on Tourism lodge records and individual angling experiences, Advisory Council members concurred that most walleye populations in FMZ 4 are abundant and healthy. In the late 80’s, size regulations were placed on walleye angler harvest with a restriction of not more than one fish greater than 50 cm in the limit of 6 for sport fishing licence holders (3 fish for conservation licence anglers). In 1999, Northwest Region reduced the walleye catch and retain limit to 4 for sport licences and 2 for conservation licences, and lowered the size limit to not more than one fish greater than 46 cm to protect and reduce the harvest of mature females. The current walleye regulation in FMZ 4 is as follows:

• Season: open January 1st- April 14th & the 3rd Saturday in May to December 31st • Limits: Sport – 4; not more than 1 greater than 46 cm

Conservation – 2; not more than 1 greater than 46 cm In addition, there are several non-SDW lakes with exceptions or additional regulations (i.e. sanctuaries) to the zone regulations which are identified in Appendix 1.0. Objectives for Walleye Management in FMZ 4 The FMZ 4 Advisory Council developed the following objectives to guide future management of walleye populations in the Zone:

Biological Objectives: 1. To maintain current walleye abundance. 2. To protect mature female walleye from over-exploitation. 3. To protect mature walleye while spawning.

Social Objectives: 4. To maintain current angling opportunities for walleye consistent with the

sustainability of the populations. 5. To provide anglers with trophy walleye opportunities in those lakes that can

provide such opportunities. 6. To provide anglers with the opportunity to consume walleye. 7. To educate and inform the public regarding the socio-economic value of the

walleye resource in FMZ 4. Discussion The Advisory Council agreed the walleye fishery is the most valued fishery by resident and non-resident anglers, and the tourism industry in FMZ 4. Although fishing quality for walleye in FMZ 4 is generally very good, and the populations appear to be healthy, the Advisory Council expressed concern that OMNR must maintain monitoring efforts to ensure that fishing effort and harvest focused on walleye populations remain within sustainable limits. The first biological objective for walleye established by the Advisory Council is to maintain current walleye abundance in the zone by ensuring that harvests remained within the limits of allowable yield.


In order to maintain the current walleye abundance in the zone, the Advisory Council also recognized that mature walleye, particularly large females, must be protected from over-exploitation; this became the second biological management objective for walleye. In the Northwest Region, female walleye generally mature at a total length of 450 mm (Cano and Parker 2007). The Advisory Council remained supportive of continuing to provide protection to walleye over this size. Walleye are highly vulnerable when they congregate on spawning grounds. Disruption of spawning activity and over-harvest can occur if anglers target them while they are spawning. The Advisory Council recognized the importance of protecting mature walleye while spawning, and established this as the third biological management objective for the zone. In terms of social objectives, there was widespread recognition by the Advisory Council of the value of walleye angling opportunities for tourism interests, the quality of life for residents and to the economic well being of local communities and the region. Therefore, the Advisory Council developed an objective to maintain the current walleye angling opportunities consistent with the sustainability of the populations. The Advisory Council also recognized that trophy walleye, in lakes where they are capable of being produced, are a valuable asset and a draw for non-resident anglers, and an attraction that is effectively marketed by the tourism industry. Acknowledging that not all lakes are capable of producing trophy walleye, Advisory Council developed an objective to maintain opportunities in those lakes capable of producing trophy walleye. Recognizing that walleye is the most sought after species for consumption by anglers in FMZ 4, the Advisory Council agreed that providing anglers with the opportunity to consume walleye was also a social objective. All members of the Advisory Council felt the public did not fully appreciate or understand the social and economic importance of walleye fisheries to FMZ 4. The final social management objective was to inform and educate the public regarding the contributions the walleye fisheries make to the quality of life and economic well being of the Zone. Management Actions to meet Walleye Management Objectives in FMZ 4 The FMZ 4 Advisory Council developed the following management actions and monitoring strategies to meet the walleye management objectives in the zone:

1. Maintain the current walleye regulations. • Season: open January 1st- April 14th & the 3rd Saturday in May to December • Limits: Sport – 4; not more than 1 greater than 46 cm

Conservation – 2; not more than 1 greater than 46 cm 2. Review the existing procedures used by the public to report violations (i.e. TIPS)

and, if required, provide recommendations on how to improve public engagement.

3. Continue to collect lake temperature and ice-on/ice-off data and monitor spawning activity in relation to the season closing and opening dates.

4. Prepare public education materials that: • Describe the social value and economic contributions of the walleye resource


• Illustrate correct handling and release techniques (visual posters) • Describe the importance of large female walleye to the population, and why

we protect them. • Inform anglers how and why fishing walleye in deep water increases

mortality. Rationale The Advisory Council and OMNR recommended maintaining the current walleye regulations. Based on information in the FMZ 4 Background Report and the angling experiences of the Advisory Council representatives, the present regulation is achieving the biological and social objectives for managing walleye within the allowable yield. In general, the Advisory Council felt that the current regulations were effectively protecting walleye populations, in particular the large breeding female component of populations, and also providing trophy walleye opportunities. However, when problems are identified, the Advisory Council indicated concern that there can be a significant time delay in implementing regulatory actions or management strategies. The Advisory Council requested that OMNR review and revise existing procedures to ensure that the adaptive management process can be effectively implemented. Some concern was expressed by the Advisory Council regarding the walleye season closing and opening dates. In some years, walleye are still spawning when the season opens in May and anglers may disrupt spawning activity and harvest female walleyes before they have had an opportunity to spawn. This situation appears to be happening more frequently and may be due to changing climatic conditions. Existing data indicates for the past ten years, the majority of walleye spawning had been completed by the time the season opened. However, there were three years when spawning continued after the opening day. It was agreed by the Advisory Council and OMNR that the season closing and opening dates should not be changed at the present time, but long term monitoring of walleye spawning activities should be undertaken to determine whether the existing closed season fulfills the objective of protecting spawning walleye. Initially, some of the Advisory Council was concerned about harvest of mature walleye in the spring when they are congregating prior to spawning. This concern was alleviated when they understood walleyes eggs are formed in the fall and to provide 100% protection of mature females prior to spawning would require a closed season extending from the fall throughout the winter. The Advisory Council and OMNR agreed in most situations the one over 46 regulation provided adequate protection by reducing the harvest of mature walleye during this period. However, there are locations where additional protection may be required and where identified an extended closed season (‘sanctuary’) to protect pre and post spawning walleye from excessive harvest may be warranted. In these cases, the Advisory Council and OMNR recommended a standard closed season from April 1 to June 14 be utilized. In addition to monitoring spawning activity, the Advisory Council supported OMNR’s initiatives of long term monitoring of lake temperatures and ice on/off conditions. The Advisory Council agreed this information is necessary to understand the potential impacts of climate change on lake productivity and walleye populations and to anticipate and implement proactive management actions.


The Advisory Council expressed an interest in having greater input into enforcement priorities as they felt that insufficient enforcement time was being spent on some lakes that were receiving heavy angling pressure. The Advisory Council recognized that there are a limited number of enforcement staff available and that priorities have to be established. Individual lake enforcement is usually targeted at waterbodies showing sustainability issues, however, there may be opportunities to use the Advisory Council’s extensive network of contacts to increase the scope and efficiency of detecting and reporting upon violations. The development and effective distribution of public education materials was seen by the Advisory Council as an important management action that has not been utilized in recent years. Specifically they felt that describing the value of the walleye resource to the public would increase public appreciation of the resource and greater support for management efforts. Both the Advisory Council and OMNR agreed the public has endorsed catch and release but in many cases are unaware of increased mortalities associated with poor handling procedures and deep water angling. Increased education showing proper handling and release techniques and the impacts of deep water angling should be developed and made readily available throughout the Zone. These educational products could be linked to the Fish-on-Line website as a distribution source, and also distributed at tourist establishments, sport shows and retail locations. Additional Considerations for Walleye Management in FMZ 4 As part of the planning process, the Advisory Council also reviewed each of the regulation exceptions. Three major exceptions involving walleye were reviewed, including:

• Cedar River Watershed Sanctuary Dates • Watcomb Chain of Lakes • Sydney Lake Area

Details of these exceptions are found in Section 5.2. Summary of Walleye Management Objectives, Actions and Monitoring Strategies Objective Biological Objectives

1. To maintain current walleye abundance. 2. To protect mature female walleye from over-exploitation. 3. To protect mature walleye while spawning. Social Objectives 4. To maintain current angling opportunities for walleye consistent

with the sustainability of the populations. 5. To provide anglers with trophy walleye opportunities in those

lakes that can provide such opportunities. 6. To provide anglers with the opportunity to consume walleye. 7. To educate and inform the public regarding the socio-economic

value of the walleye resource in FMZ 4.*

Indicator 1. General Walleye Abundance Indicator: Area weighted catch


per unit effort (# per large mesh nets) of walleye from fixed BsM lakes containing walleye.

2. Mature Female Walleye Abundance Indicator: a) Abundance of mature female walleye (46 cm or greater in

total length) from fixed BsM lakes containing walleye. b) Proportion of lakes with walleye larger than 46 cm from fixed

BsM lakes containing walleye. 3. Spawning Protection Indicator: Proportion of walleye

spawning activity protected by current closed season (April 15th to 3rd Saturday in May).

4. Walleye Angling Opportunity Indicator: Angling opportunities determined by the length of the open walleye angling season.

5. Trophy Walleye Abundance Indicator: a) Abundance of walleye larger than 60 cm in total length from

fixed BsM lakes containing walleye. (Also refer to Monitoring Strategy #2)

b) Proportion of lakes with walleye larger than 60 cm in total length from fixed BsM lakes containing walleye.

6. Walleye Consumption Opportunity Indicator: Consumption opportunities determined by the daily catch and retain limits for walleye.

Benchmark 1. Results (median catch per net) from 2009 BsM.

2. a) Results (median catch per net) from 2009 BsM. b) Results from 2009 BsM.

3. Currently this is not monitored on an annual basis. OMNR to establish Regional benchmarks: proportion of spawning activity protected on an annual basis (i.e. % days protected) and within a ten year cycle (i.e. % years protected).

4. Currently, the walleye angling season is open from the 3rd Saturday in May until April 14th of the following year.

5. a) Results (median catch per net) from 2009 BsM. (Also refer to Monitoring Strategy #2) b) Results from 2009 BsM.

6. Currently, the daily catch and retain limits for walleye are sport-4 and conservation-2, not more than 1 greater than 46 cm.

Target 1. No significant** decrease in the median catch per net in the

2014 BsM results. 2. a) No significant** decrease in the 2014 BsM results.

b) No significant** decrease in the 2014 BsM results. 3. OMNR to establish target based on benchmark. 4. Maintain present open season dates, provided Objectives 1 and

3 are achieved. 5. Trophy Walleye Abundance Target:

a) No significant** decrease in the 2014 BsM results. (Also refer to Monitoring Strategy #2)

b) No significant** decrease in the 2014 BsM results. 6. Maintain present catch and retain limits, provided Objectives 1

and 2 are achieved.


Accomplished by (Date)

2018 for all objectives

Management Action

1. Maintain the current walleye regulations. 2. Encourage the public to document details when they witness

resource use violations and report them through the TIPS line. 3. Continue to collect lake temperature and ice-on/ice-off data and

monitor spawning activity in relation to the season closing and opening dates; could be incorporated into lake partner programs utilizing volunteers.

4. Prepare public education materials that: • Describe the value of the walleye resource; • Illustrate correct handling and release techniques (i.e. visual

posters); • Promote the value of protecting large female walleye; • Describe the effects of catching walleye from deep water.

Monitoring Strategy

1. Follow Broad Scale Monitoring program protocols every 5 years (next scheduled survey in 2014).

2. Implement voluntary angler diary programs through partners and utilize tourism annual catch records to gain additional walleye data.

3. Implement lake partner program utilizing volunteers to collect specific lake data (i.e. ice-on/ice-off; water temperature; walleye spawning dates).

4. Work with social science experts to develop an inexpensive survey protocol that will allow us to measure the effectiveness of communications/educational materials.

*This social objective is not conducive to traditional measurement. Success will be measured based on feedback from the Advisory Council and public. **Difference must be statistically significant. 5.1.2 Northern Pike Northern pike (Esox lucius) are the most abundant and widely and evenly distributed sport fish species found in FMZ 4. They occur in at least 90% of the lakes surveyed in FMZ 4 (Cano and Parker 2007). Pike are not well adapted for life in strong currents and occur more frequently in lakes than rivers, where they inhabit backwaters and pools (Inskip 1982). Pike occur in a wide variety of lakes ranging from very small, shallow lakes to large, unproductive lake trout lakes. The size and depth of lakes has been found to determine a number of northern pike population characteristics with shallow lakes dominated by large numbers of small sized fish while larger, deeper lakes tend to have fewer but larger sized pike (Pierce and Tomcko 1998). Pike are tolerant of a wide range of environmental variables (e.g. temperature, oxygen, and pH) and the main factor limiting presence and abundance is the availability of suitable spawning habitat (Inskip 1982). Shallow vegetated areas such as flooded marshes, flooded terrestrial vegetation or weedy bays provide essential spawning habitat, provided that high spring water levels are maintained throughout the embryo and fry stages (Hassler 1970).


Although fish comprise 90% of their diet, pike are considered opportunistic feeders and will feed on any prey item that is within the size range they can consume (Scott and Crossman 1973). Food availability is seldom a limiting factor. Northern pike are fast growers, attain large size, mature early and can be relatively long lived. In comparison to other zones in Northwest Region, northern pike abundance in Fall Walleye Index Netting (FWIN) catches was the highest in FMZ 4 (Cano and Parker 2007). FMZ 4 pike population traits such as age, growth and morality appear to be similar, if not more robust, than other zones within Northwest Region (OMNR 2010). Northern pike are second only to walleye as the most preferred and caught species in FMZ 4 (Hogg et al 2010). The 2005 angler recreational survey revealed that a low percentage of pike are kept. Although consuming pike is important, the opportunity to catch and release large northern pike is what attracts non-resident anglers to come to this Zone. The over-harvest of pike is not considered an issue in FMZ 4. In the late 80’s, the first size restriction was placed on northern pike angler harvest with a regulation of not more than one fish over 70 cm with a catch and retain limit of six fish. In 1999, in response to a decline in the abundance of large northern pike and angling quality, Northwest Region reduced the northern pike sport licence daily catch and retain limits from six to four, and replaced the previous size limit with a protective slot of none between 70-90 cm and not more than one fish over 90 cm size limit. The management objective of the protective slot was to increase angling quality by reducing the harvest of large northern pike, and to increase the recruitment of more northern pike into the trophy category (greater than 90 cm). Although the protective slot appears to have achieved its original management objectives, it has not been without controversy. Since its implementation, many anglers have complained that the regulation prevents the harvesting of the most desirable sized northern pike for consumption. The current northern pike angling regulation in FMZ 4 is as follows:

• Season: open all year • Limits: Sport - 4 – none between 70-90 cm, not more than 1 > 90 cm Conservation -2– none between 70-90 cm, not more than 1 > 90 cm

In addition, there are several non-SDW lakes with exceptions or additional regulations (i.e. daily catch and possession limits) to the zone regulations which are identified in Appendix 1. Objectives for Northern Pike Management in FMZ 4 The FMZ 4 Advisory Council developed the following objectives to guide future management of northern pike populations in the Zone:

Biological Objectives: 1. To maintain current northern pike abundance. 2. To protect mature female northern pike from over-exploitation.


Social Objectives: 3. To maintain current angling opportunities for northern pike consistent with the

sustainability of populations. 4. To provide anglers with trophy northern pike angling opportunities in those lakes

that can provide such opportunities. 5. To provide anglers the opportunity to consume the preferred size of northern

pike. 6. To simplify the northern pike regulations.

Discussion The FMZ 4 Advisory Council recognizes northern pike as a highly valued sportfish species, second only to walleye in angler preference. The opportunity to catch large pike and to consume pike is important to resident, non-resident anglers and the tourist industry. The Advisory Council also acknowledged that the northern pike fishery in FMZ 4 appears to be healthy, and this is supported by initial Broadscale Monitoring analysis. However, they believe the percentage of anglers in FMZ 4 targeting northern pike is increasing. Maintaining current northern pike abundance became the first biological management objective for the zone and maintaining current northern pike angling opportunities consistent with the sustainability of the population became the first social management objective. Traditionally, catch and possession limits are the most direct regulatory option used to maintain populations at a sustainable level. Abundance can also be maintained by ensuring mature females are not over-harvested and there are sufficient numbers of mature females in the population to ensure adequate recruitment. Protecting mature females from over-harvest became the second biological management objective for northern pike. Regulatory options used to protect mature female northern pike from over-exploitation include a closed season during the spawning period and/or a catch and retain limit of not more than one over the 50% maturity size. Although current OMNR netting programs do not specifically target northern pike, available data in FMZ 4 suggests that the size at 50% maturity for female northern pike is 48 cm (Peter Addison, MNR, personal comment). In Regulations and Size Limits, Northern Pike, Northeast Region Lakes Addendum, Casselman identified 61 cm as the upper 95% confidence limit for length at maturity for northern pike (Casselman, 2001). Based on these maturity lengths, the existing protected slot of 70 - 90 cm would only partially achieve the objective of protecting mature females. Tourism representatives indicated that prior to 1999 there had been a decline in angler satisfaction regarding the northern pike fishery. This was anecdotally attributed to a decrease in the abundance of large northern pike and the opportunity to catch trophy sized pike (greater than 90 cm). The current northern pike protective slot was implemented to improve angling quality by protecting large northern pike and giving them the opportunity to reach trophy size. Not all lakes are capable of producing northern pike of trophy size, but the current size regulation appears to have been successful in producing trophy pike in capable lakes (generally larger, deeper lakes). The Advisory Council and OMNR agreed that trophy northern pike are increasingly important to both resident anglers and the tourism industry, so maintaining trophy northern pike abundance and providing anglers with trophy northern pike opportunities in


those lakes that can provide such opportunities was noted as a social management objective. Northern pike exhibit sexual dimorphic growth; that is female northern pike reach much larger sizes than males. In fact, the majority of northern pike reaching the trophy category are females, and therefore this objective is intrinsically linked to the biological objective of protecting mature female pike from over-exploitation. Since the implementation of the current northern pike slot size regulation, many anglers have complained to OMNR that the regulation prevents the harvesting of the most desired size of northern pike for consumption. Anglers contend that northern pike below 70 cm are difficult to clean and are generally considered less desirable for consumption; and in many lakes pike above 90 cm are rare or absent. Angler representatives on the Advisory Council identified the preferred size of pike for consumption as between 70-90 cm with 80 cm identified as the ideal. Anglers have indicated they want the opportunity to harvest one pike in this preferred size range. To help reduce the harvest of walleye populations, both tourism and angler representatives agreed northern pike should be promoted and encouraged as an alternative to walleye as a shore lunch and take home catch. However, some contend the current protected slot prevents anglers from consuming the most desirable size. A social management objective to provide anglers with the opportunity to consume the preferred size of northern pike was developed. The Advisory Council indicated that, if possible, the northern pike regulations should be less complicated. Some anglers find slot size regulations confusing, and simplifying the regulations would make it easier for anglers to abide by the regulations. The Advisory Council subsequently recommended this as a social management objective. The biological and social management objectives established for northern pike management attempt to strike a balance between maintaining current northern pike abundance, protecting large fish to provide for trophy angling opportunities in lakes that can produce large fish, and allowing anglers to harvest pike of the preferred size for consumption. Management Actions to meet Northern Pike Management Objectives in FMZ 4 The FMZ 4 Advisory Council developed the following management actions and monitoring strategies to meet the northern pike management objectives in the Zone:

1. Maintain the current regulations: • Season: open all year • Daily Catch and Retain Limits:

Sport – 4, Conservation -2 2. Amend the size limit regulation to:

• Not more than one (1) greater than 60 cm for both sport and conservation licences

3. Prepare public education materials that: • promote and encourage the consumption of northern pike as an alternative

shore lunch option; • illustrate correct filleting method of northern pike (visual poster); • illustrate correct catch and release methods for northern pike (visual

posters).


Rationale The Advisory Council and OMNR believe the current catch and retain limits of Sport-4 and Conservation-2 are appropriate to achieve the management objective of maintaining abundance. Available northern pike population and creel data does not suggest a biological need to implement lower catch and possession limits in order to maintain current pike abundance in the Zone. The regulation is well accepted by both resident and non-resident anglers and is supported by the northern pike ‘tool kit’. Protecting mature fish while they are spawning is a regulatory option often used to reduce the harvest of vulnerable spawners and to ensure successful spawning and recruitment. However, the Advisory Council and OMNR did not feel there was a need to implement a closed season for northern pike in FMZ 4. The year round open season does allow angling of northern pike to occur when they are vulnerable during spawning (late-March until early-May), however accessing spawning pike is generally difficult due to poor ice conditions during this timeframe. In addition, the majority of non-resident anglers do not come to FMZ 4 until well after pike have spawned. Both the Advisory Council and OMNR concurred that little harvest occurred during this period and mature females could be afforded protection using other regulatory actions (i.e. size limits). Maintaining angling opportunities is a prime directive of all management plans and restrictive regulations should only be applied when required. A year round open season for northern pike also provides additional angling opportunities during the walleye closed season. The Advisory Council did identify the need to find the appropriate size regulation that would best achieve the objectives of maintaining current trophy northern pike abundance; providing anglers the opportunity to consume the preferred size of northern pike; and protecting mature female northern pike from over-harvest. This regulation must also balance and reflect the needs and expectations all anglers. Although no formal OMNR surveys have been conducted in FMZ 4 to evaluate the effectiveness of the current protective slot limit, tourism and resident angler representatives agree there has been an increase in the abundance of large northern pike and angling quality. Many lodges also maintain records of guest catches and these confirm an increase in the catch of large northern pike since the implementation of the protective slot. OMNR surveys conducted on Specially Designated Waters (SDW) in FMZ 5 (e.g. Winnipeg River, Lake of the Woods, and Rainy Lake) confirm the protective slot has been effective in increasing the number of pike in the 70-90 cm size range and increasing the abundance of northern pike in the trophy (greater than 90 cm) category. The preferred regulation for those who want to promote catch and release of large pike is the existing protective slot; however, that regulation does not satisfy the social management objective of allowing anglers to harvest the preferred size for consumption. As previously discussed, angler representatives on the Advisory Council identified the preferred size of pike for consumption as between 70-90 cm, with 80 cm identified as the ideal. They advocated a return to the pre-1999 regulation that allowed the harvesting of one northern pike greater than 70 cm. Tourism representatives considered this option as regression that would result in a decrease in the abundance of large northern pike, and could degrade angling quality for northern pike to the pre-1999 condition.


Maturity data available for pike suggests 95% female maturity is achieved by 61 cm or less and therefore the existing protected slot of 70 - 90 cm, and the suggested one over 70 cm size, would only partially achieve the objective of protecting mature females. Under both regulatory options anglers would be able to harvest four potentially mature females below 70 cm. Presently, both OMNR and the Advisory Council do not believe mature female pike are over-harvested, but the current regulation does allow the potential for the harvesting of four mature females during the spawning period. In order to achieve the key management objectives, OMNR suggested an alternative regulation of not more than one fish over 60 cm. This option provides the opportunity for anglers to harvest one northern pike in the preferred size range (greater than 70 cm), while reducing the potential harvest of mature northern pike between 60-70 cm, allowing them the opportunity to grow into the large northern pike category (70-90 cm), and possibly achieve the trophy category of 90 cm. Tourism representatives were prepared to accept the harvesting of one large northern pike for consumption in exchange for reduced harvest of northern pike in the 60-70 cm category. Initially, some Advisory Council members were concerned some anglers would not support this reduction, but the Advisory Council had the opportunity to view “real-size” illustrations of northern pike in the increments of 60, 70, 80 and 90 cm. After viewing these and their corresponding weights, the Advisory Council concluded that one pike in the 70 to 80 cm category provides a substantial amount of flesh for consumption, and keeping multiple fish in the 60-70 cm size range is not necessary or desired by most anglers. The proposed option of not more than one fish over 60 cm also provides the greatest protection to mature female northern pike throughout the year and would limit potential harvest of mature females during the spawning season. This would further reduce the risk associated with an open season during the spawning period. The Advisory Council and OMNR endorsed the proposed regulation as the “best fit” to satisfy each of the identified biological and social management objectives, as well as balance the interests of both anglers and the tourism industry. This regulation is also the size limit recommended in the northern pike ‘tool kit’ to protect large and mature pike while allowing the opportunity to harvest pike in the preferred size range. Implementing the regulation change will simplify the pike regulations, making them easier for anglers to understand and comply with and for OMNR to enforce. The Advisory Council felt this was an important change as many anglers find slot size regulations confusing. In addition, for those anglers who want to harvest only one large pike, the one over limit eliminates the need to measure their catch and thereby reduces the stress associated with measuring fish within a slot limit. Maximum size limits (i.e. ‘one over’ regulations) are often used to provide trophy angling opportunities, while still protecting large, spawning fish. In Northwestern Ontario the maximum size limit or ‘one over’ regulation structure has been in place for walleye since 1999 and its management objectives to protect spawning females and large walleye is widely understood and accepted by anglers. A consistent approach and application of similar regulations for northern pike will assist the public in understanding the rationale for management objectives, and will result in greater support for these objectives and regulations. In order to promote northern pike as an alternative shore lunch and consumption option, the Advisory Council suggested creating educational fact sheets or videos illustrating the correct filleting method. The Advisory Council also identified a concern that some anglers may not be aware of the correct handling techniques to reduce northern pike


catch and release mortality and it was suggested that illustrative posters could be developed. These educational products could be linked to the Fish-on-Line website as a distribution source, and also distributed at tourist establishments, sport shows and retail locations. Additional Considerations for Northern Pike Management in FMZ 4: The Advisory Council considered a size limit regulation of one northern pike greater than 70 cm for both sport and conservation fishing licences. Although this regulation is not a ‘tool kit’ recommendation, the Advisory Council felt that it might appear to be less restrictive (allowing anglers to still harvest pike in the 60-70 cm size range) and therefore more acceptable to anglers than one pike greater than 60 cm. Upon evaluating the maturity data for northern pike, the Advisory Council agreed that this regulation could not be biologically rationalized (based on 50% maturity). As well, this regulation was the regulation in place until 1999, and the Councilors, particularly representatives of the tourism industry, felt that this regulation did not produce a ‘trophy’ fishery and reverting to this regulation would erode the benefits achieved by the 70-90 cm protected slot. For these reasons, the Advisory Council decided not to adopt this regulation as their preferred option. Summary of Northern Pike Management Objectives, Actions and Monitoring Strategies Objective Biological Objectives

1. To maintain current northern pike abundance. 2. To protect mature female northern pike from over-exploitation. Social Objectives 3. To maintain current angling opportunities for northern pike

consistent with the sustainability of populations. 4. To provide anglers with trophy northern pike angling

opportunities in those lakes that can provide such opportunities. 5. To provide anglers the opportunity to consume the preferred

size of northern pike. 6. To simplify northern pike regulations.*

Indicator 1. General Northern Pike Abundance Indicator: Area weighted catch per unit effort (# per large mesh nets) of northern pike from fixed BsM lakes containing northern pike.

2. Mature Female Northern Pike Abundance Indicator: a) Abundance of mature female northern pike (60 cm or greater

in total length) from fixed BsM lakes containing northern pike.

b) Proportion of lakes with northern pike larger than 60 cm from fixed BsM lakes containing northern pike.

3. Northern Pike Angling Opportunity Indicator: Angling opportunities determined by the length of the open northern pike angling season.

4. Trophy Northern Pike Abundance Indicator: a) Abundance of northern pike larger than 90 cm in total length


from fixed BsM lakes containing northern pike. (Also refer to Monitoring Strategy #2)

b) Proportion of lakes with northern pike larger than 90 cm in total length from fixed BsM lakes containing northern pike. (Also refer to Monitoring Strategy #2)

5. Ability to Harvest Preferred Size Northern Pike Indicator: Determined by the opportunity for anglers to harvest northern pike of the preferred size (80 cm).



3. Currently, the northern pike angling season is open all year. 4. a) Results (median catch per net) from 2009 BsM. (Also refer to

Monitoring Strategy #2) b) Results from 2009 BsM. (Also refer to Monitoring Strategy #2)

5. Results from 2009 BsM. 6. Currently, the 70-90 cm northern pike protected slot does not

allow anglers to retain an 80 cm northern pike.

Target 1. No significant** decrease in the median catch per net in the 2014 BsM results.

2. a) No significant** decrease in the 2014 BsM results. b) No significant** decrease in the 2014 BsM results.

3. Maintain present open season dates, provided Objective 1 is achieved.

4. a) No significant** decrease in the median catch per net in the 2014 BsM results. b) No significant** decrease in the 2014 BsM results.

5. No significant** decrease in the 2014 BsM results. 6. Catch and retain regulations that allow anglers to harvest

northern pike 80 cm in total length.



Management Action

1. Maintain the current possession limits - sport 4; conservation 2; 2. Amend the fishing regulations to allow the possession of one

northern pike over 60 cm for both sport and conservation licences;

3. Prepare public education materials that: a. promote and encourage the consumption of northern pike as

an alternative shore lunch option; b. illustrate correct filleting method of northern pike (visual

poster); c. illustrate correct catch and release methods for northern pike

(visual posters).

Monitoring Strategy

1. Follow Broadscale Monitoring program protocols every 5 years (next scheduled survey in 2014).


2. Implement voluntary angler diary programs through partners to utilize tourism and annual catch records to gain additional northern pike data.

3. Work with social science experts to develop an inexpensive survey protocol that will allow us to monitor the effectiveness of communications/educational materials.

*This social objective is not conducive to traditional measurement. Success will be measured based on feedback from the Advisory Council and public. **Difference must be statistically significant. 5.1.3 Lake Trout Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) are slow growing, exhibit longevity, late maturity, and low reproductive potential. They have strict habitat requirements and are found primarily in deep, cold, well-oxygenated lakes with clean windswept rock/rubble shorelines used for spawning. These lakes tend to be nutrient poor and have a low productive capacity. Lake trout are a sensitive species and their life history characteristics and habitat requirements make them vulnerable to over-exploitation and habitat changes caused by human induced stressors such as increased nutrient loading, climate change, etc. There are 121 known lake trout lakes in FMZ 4 ranking second only to FMZ 5 in terms of the number of lakes with lake trout present in Northwest Region. These lakes are widely distributed throughout FMZ 4. Populations of lake trout are diverse; some may exist exclusively as the top predator in association with other cold water fish species (i.e. lake whitefish, ciscoes) or they may be found in small, cold water bodies with little to no additional fish community structure where they feed on zooplankton and invertebrates; or they may be present in water bodies containing both coolwater and coldwater habitat where they exist alongside other predatory fish species such as northern pike and walleye (Scott and Crossman 1973). Growth rates between lakes and within the same lake can vary depending on prey availability and prey preference. Lake trout that feed on prey species such as ciscoes or yellow perch are piscivorous (fish eating) and have the potential to achieve large or trophy size, whereas lake trout that feed primarily on zooplankton and other invertebrates (planktivorous) are generally smaller with lower growth rates. The FMZ 4 Background Report revealed there is a significant lack of data for lake trout within the Zone. However, existing information and early indications from the Broadscale Monitoring (BsM) program indicate lake trout populations are healthy and abundant in FMZ 4. This assessment is shared and supported by the tourism and resident angler representatives on the FMZ 4 Advisory Council. During the summer or open water season, lake trout angling is primarily undertaken by non-resident anglers staying at tourism establishments, while in the winter months resident anglers are the main component of the fishery. Although not documented, both the Advisory Council and OMNR believe angling pressure on lake trout has declined in recent years. This is partially attributed to the decline in the U.S. economy resulting in a decreased number of non-resident coming to the zone and there appears to be a decrease in the number of resident anglers targeting lake trout. This decrease in resident angling may partially be due to snow and ice conditions and a shift in interest to other species such as walleye and smallmouth bass.


Lake trout angling regulation changes in recent decades include a limit reduction from 3 fish to 2 fish in the late ‘80’s, and in 1999 the addition of a 1 fish over 56 cm size limit from September 1st to September 30th. The intent of the current regulations was to reduce harvest of lake trout; protect lake trout while spawning; and reduce harvest of mature female lake trout as they congregate in the month of September prior to spawning. The current lake trout angling regulation in FMZ 4 is as follows:

• Season: open January 1 – September 30th • Limits: Sport Fishing Licence – 2; not more than 1 greater than 56 cm from Sept.

1- Sept. 30 Conservation Licence -1; no size limit

In addition, there are several non-SDW lakes with exceptions or additional regulations (e.g. daily catch and retain limits) to the Zone regulations which are identified in Appendix 1. Objectives for Lake Trout Management in FMZ 4 The FMZ 4 Advisory Council developed the following objectives to guide future management of lake trout populations in the zone:

Biological Objectives: 1. To maintain current lake trout abundance. 2. To protect mature female lake trout from over-exploitation. 3. To protect small-bodied lake trout from over-exploitation.

Social Objectives: 4. To provide anglers with trophy lake trout angling opportunities in those lakes that

can provide such opportunities. 5. To provide anglers with the opportunity to consume lake trout.

Discussion The Advisory Council and OMNR believe lake trout within FMZ 4 are healthy and abundant, and there are no immediate concerns regarding their status. However, the Advisory Council recognizes lake trout are a sensitive species, easily over-exploited, and may be vulnerable to climate change and invasive species in the future. They believe a precautionary approach should be taken to managing this species and realistic expectations regarding harvest and lake capacity need to be considered while maintaining angling opportunities. The Advisory Council agreed that the lake trout fishery is very important to both resident and non-resident anglers, and the tourism industry. Maintaining the current lake trout abundance became the first biological management objective for the zone. Catch and possession limits are the primary regulatory actions used to limit harvest and maintain abundance.


Female lake trout mature later and produce fewer eggs than other sportfish species. In northeast Ontario, Selinger et al. 2006 reported female lake trout 50% maturity was attained by age seven years or approximately 56 cm total length or greater. Protecting mature females during the spawning period and from over-exploitation throughout the year would also assist in maintaining lake trout abundance. This became the Advisory Council’s second biological management objective for lake trout. The third biological management objective for lake trout identified by the Advisory Council was the need to add regulatory protection for lakes producing small-bodied (generally planktivorous) lake trout. Because these populations tend to be found in small lakes, they are more vulnerable to over exploitation than populations in large lakes. In southern Ontario, small-bodied lake trout mature between 33 and 40 cm and seldom grow larger than 40 cm. This is consistent with growth rates recorded for planktivorous populations in FMZ 5 (OMNR 2012b). The Advisory Council recognized these lakes as distinct and important in the zone. The opportunity to catch trophy lake trout, in those lakes capable of producing such opportunities, was viewed by the Advisory Council as important to both resident and non-resident anglers, and the tourism industry. The Advisory Council recognized trophy lake trout as a unique, limited resource and identified the need to protect them from over-harvest. Providing anglers with trophy lake trout opportunities was identified as the first social management objective. This social management objective is also linked to the biological management objective of protecting large female lake trout from over-exploitation. That is, protecting trophy lake trout will also provide protection to large, sexually mature female lake trout. The Advisory Council agreed that consumption of lake trout is important to all angler groups in FMZ 4. Providing anglers the opportunity to consume lake trout became the second social management objective for the Zone. Management Actions to meet Lake Trout Management Objectives in FMZ 4 The FMZ 4 Advisory Council developed the following management actions to meet the lake trout management objectives in the zone:

1. Maintain the current season and catch and retain regulations: • Season: open season from January 1 to September 30 • Daily Catch and Retain Limits:

Sport – 2, Conservation - 1 2. Amend the size limit for sport licences to:

• Not more than 1 greater than 56 cm from January 1 to September 30 3. Consider implementing boat cache allocation restrictions on lake trout lakes less

than 100 ha 4. Produce educational material on the fragility of lake trout (easily over-exploited;

vulnerable to habitat change etc.) to increase angler understanding and support of lake trout regulations.


Rationale The Advisory Council and OMNR felt that the current lake trout season and catch and possession limits are appropriate to achieve the management objective of maintaining abundance. The open season of January 1st to September 30th is a recommended ‘tool kit’ option and available data does not suggest the need to reduce the season duration or provide additional protection during the spawning period. The catch and possession limits of two lake trout for sport fishing licences and one for conservation licences are the provincial standard supported in the ‘tool kit’. These limits place value on the resource, recognizing the fragility of the species, while still allowing anglers to harvest for consumption or trophy opportunities. The Advisory Council and OMNR, however, agreed that the existing size restriction of not more than one lake trout greater than 56 cm from September 1 to September 30 should be extended throughout the year. The current seasonal size limit protects large mature female lake trout only one month prior to the closed spawning period; the Advisory Council agreed that regardless of when a mature female lake trout is harvested, it is still removed from the breeding population. If the objective is to maintain the current lake trout population abundance, and protect mature females by limiting harvest, this protection should be afforded for the entire season similar to the size regulation for walleye. The Advisory Council and OMNR agreed that trophy lake trout are unique and limited and the opportunity to catch these fish is important to all angler groups in FMZ 4. Reducing the harvest of large lake trout greater than 56 cm may also allow more lake trout to achieve a trophy size and therefore increase the trophy angling opportunities in those lakes capable of producing this category of fish. The Advisory Council recognized that harvesting lake trout for consumption is important to all angler groups. Although the proposed regulation maintains the current catch and possession limit of two lake trout for sport fishing licences, and one lake trout for conservation licences, it does reduce the number of trout larger than 56 cm that can be harvested from two to one. The Advisory Council representatives agreed harvesting one large lake trout per day was sufficient to meet most anglers’ expectations and the Advisory Council was confident that most members of the angling groups they represent would accept this reduction. Besides providing greater protection to mature female and large lake trout, the Advisory Council felt the preferred option reflects a more realistic expectation regarding the productive capacity of lake trout and places a greater value on the resource. The proposed regulation does not provide additional protection to lakes with populations of small-bodied lake trout. These are populations that feed primarily on invertebrates, mature at a smaller size (between 33 and 40 cm) and seldom achieve lengths greater than 40 cm. When considering the management actions that could be implemented to achieve the biological management objective of protecting small-bodied lake trout, the Advisory Council and OMNR agreed that regulatory options were not feasible at this time. First of all, OMNR does not have an inventory of which lake trout lakes fall within the ‘small-bodied’ category and therefore it would not be possible to identify which lakes required this added protection. Secondly, implementing regulation exceptions on each of these lakes would not be consistent with regulation streamlining or the landscape management approach of Ecological Framework for Fisheries Management in Ontario


(OMNR, 2005a). Since most small-bodied populations tend to be found in small lakes, and these tend to be more susceptible to over-harvest than large lakes, the OMNR recommended to the Advisory Council that restricting boat caches on lake trout lakes less than 100 ha as a possible non-regulatory option. By restricting boat caches on these lakes, open water angling pressure and harvest should decrease, providing additional protection to these populations. In summary, the preferred option maintains existing angling opportunities, allows anglers the opportunity to consume lake trout and to harvest a trophy sized lake trout, while being easier to understand and comply with. This regulation achieves all management objectives identified for FMZ 4, except the protection of small-bodied lake trout, and balances the expectation of anglers with protection of the resource. In contrast to the existing regulation, the proposed size limit regulation is consistent with the lake trout ‘tool kit’ recommendations and would be similar in structure with the existing walleye regulation of protecting mature females (not more than one over 46 cm). A consistent approach and application of similar regulations for different species will assist the public in understanding the rationale for management objectives and will result in greater support for these objectives and regulations. The Advisory Council and OMNR felt it was also important to develop and distribute educational material on the fragility of lake trout (i.e. easily over exploited, vulnerable to habitat changes etc.) to increase angler understanding and support of the lake trout regulations. The Advisory Council and OMNR felt that although many anglers are aware of the challenges of managing the species, further education would be beneficial for all angler groups. These educational products could be linked to the Fish-on-Line website as a distribution source, and also distributed at tourist establishments, sport shows and retail locations. Additional Considerations for Lake Trout Management in FMZ 4 The only other option considered by the Advisory Council and OMNR was to maintain the lake trout regulations as status quo. The existing regulation has been in place since 1999 and anglers are familiar with the regulation. The one advantage of the existing regulation is the allowance for anglers to harvest more large lake trout. The Advisory Council and OMNR felt that the existing regulation did not satisfy the biological management objectives set for maintaining current lake trout abundance or protecting mature female lake trout from over-exploitation. Based on current angler pressure the risk associated with the existing lake trout regulation is low; however, the Advisory Council indicated their desire to be proactive in providing additional protection to lake trout, recognizing the vulnerabilities of the species. Furthermore, the existing regulation is not supported by the ‘tool kit’. Summary of Lake Trout Management Objectives, Actions and Monitoring Strategies Objective Biological Objectives

1. To maintain current lake trout abundance. 2. To protect mature female lake trout from over-exploitation. 3. To protect small-bodied lake trout from over-exploitation.


Social Objectives 4. To provide anglers with trophy lake trout angling opportunities in

those lakes that can provide such opportunities. 5. To provide anglers with the opportunity to consume lake trout.

Indicator 1. General Lake Trout Abundance Indicator: Area-weighted catch per unit effort (# per large mesh nets) from fixed BsM lakes containing lake trout.

2. Mature Female Lake Trout Abundance Indicator: b) Abundance of mature female lake trout (56 cm or greater in

total length) from fixed BsM lakes containing lake trout. c) Proportion of lakes with lake trout larger than 56 cm from fixed

BsM lakes containing lake trout. 3. Small-bodied Lake Trout Abundance Indicator: Abundance of

mature lake trout between 33 to 40 cm from fixed BsM lakes less than 100 ha containing lake trout. (See Management Action #4)

4. Trophy Lake Trout Angling Opportunity Indicator: b) Abundance of lake trout larger than 65 cm from fixed BsM

lakes containing lake trout. (See Monitoring Strategy #3) c) Proportion of lakes with lake trout larger than 65 cm from fixed

BsM lakes containing lake trout. 5. Lake Trout Consumption Opportunity Indicator:

Consumption opportunities determined by daily catch and retain limits for lake trout.



3. Results from 2009 BsM. (See Management Action #4) 4. a) Results (median catch per net) from 2009 BsM. (See

Monitoring Strategy #3) b) Results from 2009 BsM.

5. 2012 lake trout catch and retain limits.

Target 1. No significant** decrease in the 2014 BsM results. 2. a) No significant** decrease in the 2014 BsM results.

b) No significant** decrease in the 2014 BsM results. 3. No significant* decrease in the 2014 BsM results. (See

Management Action #4) 4. a) No significant** decrease in the 2014 BsM results. (See

Monitoring Strategy #3) b) No significant** decrease in the 2014 BsM results.

5. Maintain present catch and retain limits, provided Objective 1 is met.

Date 2018 for all objectives

Management Action

1. Maintain the current open season of January 1 to September 30 2. Maintain the current catch and possession limits (sport 2;

conservation 1;


3. Amend the size limit for sport licences to not more than 1 lake trout greater than 56 cm (22”) from January 1 to September 30

4. OMNR to determine whether small-bodied lake trout lake populations exist in FMZ 4 from 2009 BsM results.

5. Conditional on the results of Management Action #4 consider implementing boat cache allocation restrictions on small-bodied lake trout lakes.

6. Produce educational material on the fragility of lake trout (late producing, produce fewer eggs, more susceptible to oxygen changes in lakes) to increase angler understanding and appreciation of lake trout regulations.

Monitoring strategy


2. Consider focusing some Broadscale Monitoring aerial surveys on angler effort on selected small lake trout lakes (under 100 ha in size).

3. Implement voluntary angler diary program through partners and utilize annual tourist lodge catches to evaluate trophy indicators.

4. With volunteers, establish a network of representative locations to monitor water temperature and lake trout spawning times across FMZ 4.

**Difference must be statistically significant. 5.1.4 Smallmouth Bass Historically, smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) were limited to the Great Lakes-St Lawrence basin, but over the past 100 years they have extended their range throughout Northwest Ontario. Beginning in the early 1900’s and continuing up to the late 80’s, the Province of Ontario introduced smallmouth bass into Northwest Ontario to increase and diversify angling opportunities and promote tourism. Smallmouth bass have gained access to numerous other lakes in FMZ 4, and throughout Northwest Region, by unauthorized (illegal) stockings and have spread naturally via drainage networks. At present, smallmouth bass are found in over 100 known lakes within FMZ 4; however, it is suspected that the actual number of lakes, rivers and streams with populations of smallmouth bass is considerably higher. There are no recorded occurrences of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) in FMZ 4 (OMNR 2010). Smallmouth bass can be found in both river and lake habitats. Optimum river habitat is characterized by cool, clear, mid-order streams (greater than 10.5 m wide) with abundant shade and cover and deep pools, moderate current, and a gravel or rubble substrate (Edwards and Gebhart 1983). Preferred lake habitats are large, clear lakes with an average depth greater than 9 m with rocky shoals (Edwards and Gebhart 1983). Smallmouth bass are also commonly found in larger low productivity lake trout lakes. In these situations the two species tend to segregate in different habitats with bass occupying the shallow littoral zone and lake trout the deeper areas. There can be overlap in habitats in the spring when lake trout utilize the littoral zone for feeding. Smallmouth bass tend to be found in shallow waters in spring and early summer, moving into deeper waters as the summer progresses into fall. During winter, bass often


congregate together in deeper water and become sluggish with very little feeding occurring (Hartviksen and Momot 1987). Smallmouth bass spawn in the late spring-early summer. Male fish construct a nest and guard the eggs and swim-up fry after the female fish leave. Smallmouth bass are considered a warm water species with a temperature preference of 20 to 26 °C. Temperature may be the most important single factor limiting distribution of smallmouth bass (Edwards and Gebhart 1983). In FMZ 4 they are near the northern limit of their range. Growth is slower, maturity is later, and individuals tend to live longer than southern populations. In the south, smallmouth bass have been recorded as old as 15 years whereas individuals older than 20 years have been captured in Rainy Lake and Lake of the Woods (FMZ 5). Although bass can mature younger, individuals seven years or older are considered the prime repeat spawners with lengths of 35 cm or greater. Large, and in particular trophy sized bass, take a long time to grow and are a limited resource. A seven year old bass is approximately 1 kg (2 lb) whereas a 1.5 kg (3 lb) to 2 kg (4 lb) bass may be 10 to 15 years old or greater. In FMZ 4 smallmouth bass are the third most caught species, but with the lowest harvest percentage (Hogg et al 2010). Smallmouth bass are a popular and sought after species with non-resident anglers in FMZ 4, and are becoming increasingly popular with resident anglers. The tourist industry recognises the economic importance of bass and actively markets FMZ 4 as a destination for quality bass fishing. Based on data within the Background Report and the experiences of the tourism and angler representatives, both the Advisory Council and OMNR agreed that anglers in FMZ 4 primarily practice catch and release for bass. Although some bass are harvested for shore lunches and take home catch, most anglers are seeking the opportunity to catch and release large, quality size (greater than 43 cm) or trophy size (greater than 50 cm) bass (Gablehouse 1984). Bass are primarily targeted during the open water season, with little to no (depending on the waterbody) angling pressure or harvest during the winter months. Smallmouth bass also provide additional angling opportunities within the Zone, particularly in the summer when other species such as lake trout become more difficult to catch. The Advisory Council and OMNR agreed that bass populations are healthy and have become an integral species for the tourist industry. Prior to 1999, the limit for bass was Sport – 6, Conservation - 3 with no size limits and no closed seasons. In 1999, Northwest Region reduced the bass sport licence daily catch and retain limits from Sport – 4, Conservation - 2, with a maximum size limit and reduced limits from Dec. 1 to June 30th. The temporal size limit in association with the temporal creel limit was intended to maximize angling opportunities while protecting sexually mature bass during their most vulnerable periods (i.e. winter aggregation and nesting). The current bass angling regulation in FMZ 4 is as follows:

• Season: open all year • Limits:

Sport – 2; must be less than 35 cm from Jan 1 –June 30 and Dec 1 – Dec31 Sport - 4; no size limit from July 1 – Nov. 30

Conservation - 1; must be less than 35 cm from Jan 1 –June 30 & Dec 1 – Dec 31

Conservation - 2; no size limit from July 1 – Nov. 30


In addition, there are several non-SDW lakes with exceptions or additional regulations (e.g. catch and release only) to the Zone regulations which are identified in Appendix 1.0. Objectives for Smallmouth Bass Management in FMZ4 The FMZ 4 Advisory Council developed the following objectives to guide future management of smallmouth bass in the zone:

Biological Objectives: 1. To maintain current smallmouth bass abundance. 2. To provide protection to mature male smallmouth bass during the

spawning/nesting period.

Social Objectives: 3. To maintain angling opportunities consistent with the sustainability of smallmouth

bass populations. 4. To provide anglers with quality/trophy bass opportunities in those lakes that can

provide such opportunities. 5. To provide anglers with the opportunity to harvest smallmouth bass year round. 6. To simplify the smallmouth bass regulations. 7. To maintain opportunities for competitive angling events for smallmouth bass. 8. To eliminate unauthorized introductions and minimize the movement of

smallmouth bass into other lakes/watersheds. Discussion Even though smallmouth bass have been on the northern landscape for over 100 years, bass fisheries are still emerging and developing in terms of their social and economic recognition and importance. No other species in Northwest Ontario creates such polarized views and debate amongst anglers as smallmouth bass. Those who identify themselves as bass anglers are passionate about the qualities of the species and view catch and release fishing as the norm and accepted practice. The Tourism Industry understands and appreciates the economic benefits of this species and actively markets bass as a prime targeted species or an alternative angling opportunity for their waterbody. Conversely, many resident anglers continue to view smallmouth bass as an unwanted newcomer. The Advisory Council views mirrored this dichotomy. All members, however, accepted the reality that once bass have gained access to a waterbody it is virtually impossible to remove them from that waterbody. As a result, they accepted and endorsed the principle that existing bass populations should be managed as a valued sport fish which can provide additional angling opportunities, may divert some angling effort away from walleye, and provide economic advantages through tourism and competitive angling events. The Advisory Council and OMNR recognised that maintaining abundance is the foundation for achieving the identified social objectives related to providing angling


opportunities. Maintaining population abundance therefore became the first biological objective. The Advisory Council and OMNR also identified the need to protect large, mature male bass during the spawning and nest protection period. Unlike other species such as walleye or lake trout where the focus is to protect mature females to ensure successful spawning and recruitment, it is the male bass that is critical for successful recruitment. Males guard and care for eggs and fry during the incubation and early free swimming stages. During this period males are especially vulnerable and their physical and temporal removal through harvest or catch and release angling can reduce a nest’s potential production and can ultimately compromise recruitment. Additionally, the most successful males tend to be older (greater than 7 years) and larger (greater than 35 cm), and preventing their harvest during this vulnerable period will maintain their abundance in the fishery. Protecting mature male bass emerged as the second biological objective. The Advisory Council and OMNR recognized that smallmouth bass currently provide important angling opportunities in FMZ 4. In particular, many tourism businesses actively promote fishing for smallmouth bass to diversify the opportunities they provide, and to broaden their American client base. What attracts smallmouth bass anglers is the opportunity to catch large quality and trophy sized bass. Large and trophy sized bass are a limited resource in FMZ 4 and once removed from the population, it takes many years to replace them. In the north, bass take seven to eight years to reach 1 kg (2 lb), and 1.5 to 2 kg (3 to 4 lb respectively) bass may be 10 to 15 years or older. Therefore, the Advisory Council wanted to maintain current angling opportunities consistent with the sustainability of the population, and provide quality and trophy angling opportunities in lakes that can provide them. These became the first and second social management objectives. The Advisory Council and OMNR wanted to provide anglers with the opportunity to harvest bass year round in order to divert some harvest pressure from other target species such as walleye. The Advisory Council wanted to focus consumption harvest on small bass (i.e. less than 35 cm), while protecting large bass for reproductive purposes and to maintain fishing quality. This consideration evolved into a social management objective. The Advisory Council believed the current fishing regulation for smallmouth bass is complex and that a simpler regulation could be developed that achieved their objectives and would be easier for the public to understand and for OMNR to enforce. Simplification of the regulations for bass also became a social management objective. It was also recognized that there are underutilized angling and economic opportunities within the Zone, especially for competitive fishing events. Although few competitive bass fishing events are currently held in FMZ 4, the Advisory Council recognized that they can provide significant economic benefits to local communities, and wanted to maintain the opportunity for future events. Ensuring that the management direction for smallmouth bass allowed for competitive fishing events developed into a social management objective. While the Advisory Council and OMNR want to manage current bass populations as valued sportfish there is concern that the introduction of smallmouth bass in northern lakes may have a dramatic impact on native fish communities in some waterbodies. There is some evidence that smallmouth bass introductions can reduce littoral prey fish abundance and diversity in north temperate lakes (Vander Zanden et al 1999). Loss of


littoral prey species from bass predation could in turn impact growth rates of top predators including lake trout (Vander Zanden et al 2004). This risk has been identified primarily in lakes that lack a pelagic forage base such as ciscoes and smelt, and may include many of the small-bodied lake trout lakes. The Advisory Council recommended further expansion of bass populations should be minimized or prevented, if possible. Eliminating unauthorized introductions and minimizing the movement of smallmouth bass into other lakes and watersheds was also established as a social management objective. Management Actions to meet Smallmouth Bass Management Objectives in FMZ 4 The FMZ 4 Advisory Council developed the following management actions and monitoring strategies to meet the smallmouth bass objectives in the Zone:

1. Maintain current smallmouth bass regulations. 2. Prepare public education materials that:

• promote and encourage angling for bass; • promote and encourage the consumption of bass as an alternative shore

lunch option; • increase awareness of the impacts of angling mature male bass while they

are guarding nests; • increase the awareness of the impacts of angling deep water bass,

particularly during the fall and winter; • increase public awareness of the risks associated with unauthorized

introductions (illegal stocking); • work with the OFAH to develop education materials related to invasive

species; • describe why we are managing bass, the management challenges, and what

we are trying to accomplish. 3. Increase compliance activities, especially related to unauthorized introductions. 4. Ensure Environmental Assessment process is followed to prevent unauthorized

introductions of bass.

Rationale The Advisory Council considered numerous regulatory options to determine which would best achieve the management objectives and would be simpler and easier to understand than the existing regulation. Ultimately the Advisory Council and OMNR came to the conclusion that the existing regulation is the most appropriate option to achieve the identified management objectives despite its complexities. The concept behind catch and retain limits is to regulate the harvest, equitably distribute the resource among users, place a value on the resource, and convey a realistic expectation regarding capacity of the fishery resource. The Advisory Council agreed that the existing catch and possession limits of sport (4) and conservation (2) licences are sufficient to achieve the management objective of maintaining abundance. In fact, because most anglers practice catch and release, the Advisory Council and OMNR


would like to encourage the harvest of more small bass for shore lunch and take home catch. Bass seasons in the lower Great Lakes and the southern portion of Ontario have traditionally been closed during periods when large bass (brood stock) are particularly vulnerable to angling (Ridgway and Shuter 1997, Kieffer et al. 1993). These include closures in the late spring to early summer to coincide with the spawning season and also during the winter when bass are congregated in over wintering areas. There are concerns that catch and release fishing of nesting bass can impair reproductive success and subsequent recruitment (Kieffer et al. 1995, Philipp et al. 1997, Cooke et al. 2000). This situation may be more acute in southern Ontario where waters generally have more complex fish communities and, therefore, greater predation. During winter congregation, bass can be found in depths 8 to 10 metres (25 to 30 ft) and can experience high catch and release mortality from excessive hyperbaric pressure. The Advisory Council and OMNR did not feel a closed season during the spawning, nesting or winter periods was required. The existing regulation restricts harvest to small sub-adult bass (less than 35 cm) and protects large prime spawners. Fish communities in the north are less complex than the south, and removing guarding males from the nest for a short period of time may not expose the nests to predation to the same extent. The Advisory Council recommended that angler education could be used to increase the awareness of the impacts of angling mature bass while they are guarding nests. Both tourism and angler representatives indicated that little to no (depending on the waterbody) angling pressure or harvest occurred during the winter months leading the Advisory Council and OMNR to agree that a winter closure was not warranted. Initially some Advisory Council members recommended increasing the possession limit of sub-adults to four during the winter months in order to simplify the regulation (see ‘Additional Considerations for Smallmouth Bass Management in FMZ 4’ below). The Advisory Council and OMNR acknowledged that although the existing regulation is complex, it is effective in protecting large bass during their most vulnerable periods (spawning/winter congregations). The Advisory Council did, however, express concern that the present regulation does not protect large bass for the rest of the year. During the summer and fall there is no size restriction and anglers may harvest four large bass daily. Presently this is not occurring, but possible future interest in fishing and harvesting bass could jeopardize the existing quality bass fisheries. Contrarily, extending the size limit throughout the year could jeopardize tournament opportunities and the economic benefits associated with them (see ‘Additional Considerations for Smallmouth Bass Management in FMZ 4’ below). Some tourism representatives were also concerned that during the late fall bass are seeking deeper water and beginning to congregate in their over-wintering areas. Anglers targeting these fish, even those practicing catch and release, can cause significant mortality. The Advisory Council and OMNR recommended increased education awareness regarding the impacts of angling deep water bass during the fall and winter to address this concern as opposed to a regulatory option. Although the Advisory Council and OMNR are committed to managing existing smallmouth populations as high quality fisheries, both want to prevent any further unauthorized introductions and minimize the movement of smallmouth bass into other


lakes and watersheds. It is understood that minimizing the natural movement of existing populations will be difficult, but it is believed that unauthorized stockings can be addressed through two avenues: education and enforcement. Historically OMNR was responsible for many of the introductions of bass to increase angler diversity. Unfortunately, some members of the public have continued stocking bass not realizing that this is not only an unacceptable practice, but illegal. Today all proposed stockings must undergo a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the risks involved with species introductions and avoid past mistakes. OMNR’s mandate has expanded beyond providing increased angling opportunities and includes the protection of biodiversity (OMNR 2010). As a result, Class EA considerations include the uniqueness of the selected waterbody, habitat overlap of stocked fish versus native fish species and the impacts on native aquatic communities (OMNR 1992). Before introducing a new species, the risk to the existing community and adjacent water bodies must be thoroughly understood and justified. The opportunity to introduce smallmouth bass into new water bodies still exists but it must take into account the above considerations. The Advisory Council felt this fact should be reaffirmed to the public which may prevent the introduction of bass into undesirable locations if the associated risks are better understood. For those who continue to ignore the legislation, the Advisory Council felt that additional enforcement and compliance action is necessary to curb this activity. Encouraging the public to report illegal stocking, through the OMNR TIPS line is one action. In terms of increasing angling opportunities for bass, the Advisory Council felt that the general public wasn’t aware of the angling opportunities that exist for bass in FMZ 4. They felt that educational materials could be a simple way to increase angler interest in bass. The Advisory Council and OMNR also felt that there is a culture among anglers that you should release all bass and that bass are not desirable for consumption. It is important to try and change the public’s perception on this and encourage anglers to consider bass as a shore lunch and take home option. Ideas such as describing how to easily fillet bass and providing recipes were put forth as ways to increase the harvest of bass and divert some harvest pressure from walleye. The Advisory Council was also concerned that anglers may not understand the catch and release mortality risks associated with angling large bass off their nests or deepwater angling. Again, educational materials increasing the awareness of the impacts of angling mature bass while guarding nests or over wintering should be developed and distributed in FMZ 4. Additional Considerations for Smallmouth Bass Management in FMZ 4 Initially the regulation preferred by the Advisory Council was: Sport – 4, Conservation – 2, with no size limit from January 1 to April 30 and July 1 to December 31; and Sport – 2, Conservation – 1 with none over 35 cm from May 1 to June 30. Although not unanimously endorsed by all Advisory Council members, the majority of the Advisory Council felt that this regulation simplified the existing regulation; allowed anglers to harvest a greater number of bass year round; and still provided additional protection to spawning and nesting bass. The Advisory Council believed there is little to no angler pressure and harvest occurring during the winter months and therefore removing the winter size limit and increasing the catch and possession limit during this


period would not pose a threat to winter congregating bass. Not all Councillors supported removing the size protection during the winter season because they believe, and OMNR agreed, large bass are easy to target during this time, leaving them vulnerable to over-exploitation. Some Tourism Industry representatives were also concerned that if interest and harvesting of large bass did increase in the future, the existing quality bass fisheries could be jeopardized by allowing the harvest of large bass while they are congregating in their over-wintering sites. Ultimately, this regulation option was not recommended or endorsed by OMNR. OMNR suggested two alternative options to the Advisory Council. Option 1 - if the Advisory Council believed large bass only required protection during the spawning and nesting period then the following regulation: Sport – 4, Conservation – 2, with no size limit from January 1 to April 30 and July 1 to December 31; and Sport – 4, Conservation – 2 with none over 35cm from May 1 to June 30 would be appropriate and simplify the existing regulation. The Advisory Council was concerned that this option would increase angling pressure and harvest during nesting period, and this was not their intent. Their intent was primarily to simplify the existing regulation and some Councillors wanted to provide additional harvest opportunities during the winter months. The second alternative, the one recommended by OMNR, was Sport – 4, Conservation - 2 from January 1st to May 31st and July 1st to December 31st; with not more than one greater than 35 cm, and catch and release only from June 1st to June 30th. The OMNR felt this regulation best achieved the bass management objectives for FMZ 4, except for the tournament objective. It provided the greatest protection to large quality size bass throughout the year; encouraged and allowed the harvesting of small bass for most of the year (except nesting period); provided greater protection to nesting bass; is simple to understand and is consistent with the existing “one over” walleye regulation and proposed “one over” northern pike and lake trout regulations that protect and limit the harvest of spawning stock. Unfortunately, this regulation would also eliminate or at least severely restrict competitive tournament opportunities and their economic “spin offs” in FMZ 4. Tournaments traditionally target the largest bass which are usually brought to a central location for weigh in and public viewing. Restricting anglers to one over 35 cm would make most tournaments illegal. The Advisory Council was not prepared to endorse this regulation unless tournaments could be accommodated. As a result the Advisory Council recommended the existing regulation as the best option to achieve their management objectives for bass in FMZ 4. The Advisory Council recommended that policy and/or guidelines (including permitting) be developed for tournaments for all species, including bass. Concerns about the timing and number of tournaments and fish handling procedures were raised by Advisory Council members and policy or guidelines would provide a consistent approach to managing events. Another potential benefit of regulating tournaments may allow regulation options, such as the option discussed above, to be considered in future bass management. Tournament policy/guidelines would be a provincially led project involving Fisheries Policy section. Summary of Smallmouth Bass Management Objectives, Actions and Monitoring Strategies


Objective Biological Objectives: 1. To maintain current smallmouth bass abundance. 2. To provide protection to mature male smallmouth bass during

the spawning/nesting period. Social Objectives: 3. To maintain angling opportunities consistent with the

sustainability of smallmouth bass populations. 4. To provide anglers with quality/trophy bass opportunities in

those lakes that can provide such opportunities. 5. To provide anglers with the opportunity to harvest smallmouth

bass year round. 6. To simplify the smallmouth bass regulations.* 7. To maintain opportunities for competitive angling events for

smallmouth bass. 8. To eliminate unauthorized introductions and minimize the

movement of smallmouth bass into other lakes/watersheds.

Indicator 1. General Smallmouth Bass Abundance Indicator: Area weighted catch per unit effort (# per large mesh nets) of smallmouth bass from fixed BsM lakes containing smallmouth bass.

2. Mature Male Smallmouth Bass Abundance Indicator: Abundance of mature male smallmouth bass (35 cm or greater in total length) from fixed BsM lakes containing smallmouth bass.

3. Smallmouth Bass Angling Opportunity Indicator: Angling opportunities determined by the length of the open smallmouth bass angling season.

4. Quality / Trophy Bass Abundance Indicator: a) Abundance of smallmouth bass larger than 43 cm from large

mesh nets from fixed BsM lakes containing smallmouth bass. (Also refer to Monitoring Strategy #2)

b) Abundance of smallmouth bass larger than 50 cm from large mesh nets from fixed BsM lakes containing smallmouth bass. (Also refer to Monitoring Strategy #2)

c) Proportion of lakes with smallmouth bass larger than 43 cm from fixed BsM lakes containing smallmouth bass. (Also refer to Monitoring Strategy #2)

d) Proportion of lakes with smallmouth bass larger than 50 cm from fixed BsM lakes containing smallmouth bass. (Also refer to Monitoring Strategy #2)

5. Smallmouth Bass Harvest Opportunity Indicator: Harvest opportunities determined by the daily catch and retain limits for smallmouth bass.

7. Competitive Fishing Opportunities Indicator: Number of smallmouth bass angling tournaments on non-SDW lakes in FMZ 4.

8. Bass Population Expansion Indicator: Number of new lakes with smallmouth bass populations in FMZ 4.



2. Results (median catch per net) from 2009 BsM. 3. Currently the smallmouth bass angling season is open all year. 4. a) Results (median catch per net) from 2009 BsM.

b) Results (median catch per net) from 2009 BsM. c) Results from 2009 BsM. d) Results from 2009 BsM.

5. Current smallmouth bass catch and retain limits. 7. Currently number of tournaments on non-SDW lakes in FMZ 4 is

unknown. This benchmark is to be established. 8. Number of known lakes with smallmouth bass is approximately

100.

Target 1. No significant** decrease in the median catch per net in the 2014 BsM results.

2. No significant** decrease in the median catch per net in the 2014 BsM results.

3. Maintain present open season dates, provided Objective 1 is achieved.

4. a) No significant** decrease in the median catch per net in the 2014 BsM results. b) No significant** decrease in the median catch per net in the 2014 BsM results. c) No significant** decrease in the 2014 BsM results. d) No significant** decrease in the 2014 BsM results.

5. Maintain, or increase, present catch and retain limits, provided Objective 1 is achieved.

7. Maintain or increase the number of smallmouth bass angling tournaments in the Zone.

8. No new unauthorized introductions of smallmouth bass.



Management Action

1. Maintain the current regulation. 2. Prepare public education materials that:

• Promote and encourage angling for bass; • Promote and encourage the consumption of small bass (less

than 35 cm) as an alternative shore lunch option; • Increase awareness of the impact of angling mature male

bass while they are guarding nests; • Increase awareness of the impacts of angling deep water

bass, particularly during the fall and winter; • Increase public awareness of the risks associated with

unauthorized introductions (illegal stocking) • Work with the OFAH to develop education materials related to

invasive species; • Describe why we are managing bass, the management

challenges and what we are trying to accomplish. 3. Increase compliance activities, especially related to


unauthorized introductions by encouraging the public to report resource use violations through the OMNR TIPS line.

4. Provide opportunities for the introduction of bass if the Environmental Assessment process indicates that there are suitable candidate lakes.

Monitoring Strategy


2. Implement voluntary angler diary program through partners and utilize annual tourist lodge catches to evaluate trophy indicators.

3. Work with tourist industry and OFAH and utilize the invasive species hotline to monitor the movements of bass.

4. Work with social science experts to develop an inexpensive survey protocol that will allow us to monitor the effectiveness of communications/educational materials.

*This social objective is not conducive to traditional measurement. Success will be measured based on feedback from the Advisory Council and public. **Difference must be statistically significant. 5.1.5 Brook Trout Brook trout (Salvalinus fontinalis) are native to Ontario and both naturally reproducing and stocked brook trout populations exist within FMZ 4. Brook trout range in size, growth, and maturation from small fish in ponds and small streams, to large fish in lake and river ecosystems. Brook trout have stringent habitat requirements with water temperature being a key factor in determining brook trout habitat. A year-round supply of clean, cold, well oxygenated water, as well as adequate cover, are all habitat necessities. Streams with cool, quiet pools between runs of fast water or rapids are typical, as are small lakes and ponds. Spawning occurs in the fall and spawning site selection is usually very specific to areas of gravel substrate with up-welling groundwater (OMNR, 2007). Brook trout have relatively high natural mortality rates and are generally short lived. Although maximum lifespan as high as nine years have been recorded, in many waters brook trout seldom exceed 3-4 years of age (OMNR, 2007). The maximum age and size of brook trout can vary widely among populations. In small streams, maximum age can be three to four years old with maturity at sizes below 15 cm in length, to large lakes and rivers with trout having maximum ages as high as nine years and mature fish ranging in size from 35 to over 50 cm in length (OMNR, 2007). The stringent habitat requirements of brook trout limit natural populations within FMZ 4 to remote waterbodies associated with the Albany River watershed in Sioux Lookout District. These populations are largely riverine fisheries, with a limited number of natural brook trout lakes. There is very limited data on the natural brook trout populations in FMZ 4. The vast majority of brook trout populations in FMZ 4 are the result of OMNR stockings.


Historically OMNR stocked brook trout into 153 water bodies in order to diversify angling opportunities. Presently 17 of these water bodies are being managed as put grow and take (PGT) fisheries. In 1994 a closed brook trout season was implemented in the former Fishing Division 31 to protect naturally reproducing populations during the spawning period. In order to protect large, mature brook trout and maintain the sustainability of the natural populations, a size limit was implemented in 2000. The creation of Fisheries Management Zones resulted in part of the former Fisheries Division 31 being included in FMZ 2 and the remainder in FMZ 4. There was little information on the distribution of native brook trout or population status in FMZ 4. As a result, OMNR adopted the following zone wide regulation as a precautionary approach until sufficient assessment could be undertaken to identify the appropriate regulation to achieve the management objectives recommended in the Guidelines for Managing the Recreational Fishery for Brook Trout in Ontario (OMNR 2007). There are currently two brook trout regulations in FMZ 4:

1. Zone Wide Regulation: Season: Open January 1st to Labour Day Daily Catch and Retain Limits: S-5 C-2; not more than 1 greater than 30 cm (11.8 in.)

2. Additional FMZ 4 Fishing Opportunities Regulation: Season: Open all year Daily Catch and Retain Limits: S-5 C-2; no size limits

The additional FMZ 4 opportunity regulation is intended for stocked put-grow and take fisheries. These fisheries are managed to provide additional angling opportunities and allow consumption. There is no need for closed seasons or size limits and the regulation is consistent with the direction for managing stocked brook trout populations (OMNR 2007). Objectives for Brook Trout Management in FMZ 4 The FMZ 4 Advisory Council developed the following objectives to guide future management of brook trout populations in the Zone:

1. To maintain current abundance of native brook trout populations. 2. To provide additional brook trout angling opportunities.

Discussion Recognizing the limited extent of the natural brook trout populations in FMZ 4, the objective of brook trout management will be to maintain the current abundance of native brook trout populations. These populations provide a very unique opportunity for anglers in the Zone, and the Advisory Council and OMNR agreed that these populations should be managed accordingly.


The Advisory Council and OMNR also recognized the value of the brook trout stocking program in FMZ 4, and recommended that this program also be maintained. The stocked lakes offer diverse opportunities and the alternative regulations allow for year round brook trout angling. Considering the native brook trout populations are not easily accessible, the stocked brook trout lakes provide opportunities to a wider range of anglers. Management Actions and Monitoring Strategies to meet Brook Trout Management Objectives in FMZ 4 The FMZ 4 Advisory Council developed the following management action and monitoring strategies to meet the brook trout management objectives in the zone:

1. Maintain the current regulations. • Zone Wide Regulation: Season: Open January 1st to Labour Day

Daily Catch and Possession Limits: S-5 C-2; not more than 1 greater than 30 cm (11.8 in.)

• Additional FMZ 4 Fishing Opportunities Regulation:

Season: Open all year Daily Catch and Possession Limits: S-5 C-2; no size limits

2. Conduct a mapping exercise to delineate the extent of native brook trout

populations in FMZ 4. 3. Conduct population inventories to determine the status of native brook trout in

FMZ 4. 4. Develop indicators for native brook trout populations. 5. Continue stocking brook trout to provide PGT angling opportunities. 6. Evaluate angler use of stocked lakes to determine cost benefit and future levels

of stocking.

Rationale Brook trout are generally short-lived and vulnerable to overfishing. The current closed season reflects the timing of spawning and provides protection during this critical period. The current size regulation provides protection to mature fish and helps to reduce the biological impacts of angling while maintaining angling opportunities. Presently there is no biological data to assess the native brook trout populations of FMZ 4. As a result, the Advisory Council endorsed OMNR’s recommendation to take a precautionary approach and maintain the existing zone-wide regulation. In the future the size limit regulation and closed season may be amended if assessment data indicates a more appropriate regulation. In order to optimize angling opportunities in FMZ 4, the current Additional Opportunities Regulation provides an all-year open season and no size limits in FMZ 4 lakes stocked with brook trout. The Advisory Council agreed that these opportunities should be maintained. Information on angler use of stocked lakes is limited and monitoring angler use of the brook trout put-grow and take angling opportunities in FMZ 4 should be conducted to determine the cost benefit and the appropriate level of future stockings.


Monitoring could be conducted through angler survey boxes placed at the access points of stocked lakes. Summary of Brook Trout Management Objectives, Actions and Monitoring Strategies Objective Biological Objective

1. To maintain current abundance of native brook trout populations. Social Objective 2. To provide additional brook trout angling opportunities.

Indicator 1. Native Brook Trout Abundance Indicator: needs to be

developed 2. Additional Brook Trout Angling Opportunity Indicator:

Number of lakes listed in the ‘Additional FMZ 4 Angling Opportunities’ section of the Regulation Summary.

Benchmark 1. To be determined following an assessment of the current state

of native stocks. 2. Currently, 17 stocked brook trout lakes are listed in the

‘Additional FMZ 4 Fishing Opportunities’.

Target 1. To be determined following assessment of the current state of native stocks.

2. Maintain, or increase, 17 stocked lakes listed in the ‘Additional FMZ 4 Fishing Opportunities’ section of the Recreational Fishing Regulations.



Management Action

1. Maintain the current brook trout regulations: Open January 1st to Labour Day; S-5 and C-2; not more than one greater than 30 cm for native populations, and; Open all year; S-5 and C-2 for stocked lakes.

2. Conduct a mapping exercise to delineate the extent of native brook trout populations in FMZ 4.

3. Conduct population inventories to determine the status of native brook trout in FMZ 4.

4. Develop indicators for native brook trout populations. 5. Continue stocking brook trout to provide PGT angling

opportunities. 6. Evaluate angler use of stocked lakes to determine cost benefit

and future levels of stocking.

Monitoring Strategy

1. Monitor angler use of put grow and take stocked lakes to determine the cost benefit and the appropriate level of future stockings.


5.1.6 Other Species This Fisheries Management Plan focussed on major sportfish species that did not have identified management objectives. For the remaining species, the Advisory Council either adopted the existing management objectives or developed generic objectives without specific indicators, benchmarks and targets. The Advisory Council reviewed the regulations for the remaining sportfish species and no issues were identified. The seasons, catch and retain limits, and size limits for these species will remain unchanged. Species with Existing Management Objectives: Muskellunge distribution in FMZ 4 is limited mainly to cool water lakes and rivers in the western and southern portions of the zone. Season: Open 3rd Saturday in June to December 15th

Daily Catch and Retain Limits: S-1 C-0; must be greater than 102 cm (40 in.) The muskellunge sport fishery is primarily focussed on catch and release of large, trophy-sized fish. Regulation of this fishery is generally by minimum size limits based on growth characteristics. The zone-wide minimum size limit for FMZ 4 is 102 cm, but several lakes have minimum size limits ranging from 91 cm to 137 cm (refer to Appendix 1). Specific muskellunge size limit regulations for individual lakes are based on growth potential and productivity. Muskellunge regulations were reviewed and rationalized in the late 1990’s and regulation changes were implemented in 2001. Future changes to individual lakes will need to be based on information about growth rates or maximum muskellunge size. Diversifying Angling Opportunities: A. Rainbow trout and splake are managed as put-grow and take fisheries. Rainbow Trout have been introduced to lakes within FMZ 4 through OMNR stocking programs aimed at providing additional angling opportunities. Season: Open all year Daily Catch and Retain Limits: S-5 C-2; no size limits Splake have been introduced to lakes within FMZ 4 through OMNR stocking programs aimed at providing additional angling opportunities. Season: Open all year Daily Catch and Retain Limits: S-5 C-2: no size limits Province wide aggregate limits for trout and salmon will continue to apply in FMZ 4. A daily catch and retain limit for any combination of trout and salmon is 5 (S) or 2 (C). Individual species limits apply within the aggregate limit. B. Sunfish have a very limited distribution in FMZ 4, while black crappie have yet to be documented in any lakes in the Zone. Present angling regulations are necessary to allow anglers to legally catch and retain these species.


Black Crappie have not been documented in any lakes within FMZ 4. Season: Open all year Daily Catch and Retain Limits: S-15 C-10; no size limits Sunfish have very limited distribution in the zone. Season: Open all year Daily Catch and Retain Limits: S-50 C-25; no size limits C. Yellow perch and lake whitefish are managed primarily for consumption by anglers. Yellow Perch are widespread throughout the zone. Season: Open all year Daily Catch and Retain Limits: S-50 C-25; no size limits Lake Whitefish are widely distributed throughout FMZ 4. Season: Open all year Daily Catch and Retain Limits: S-12 C-6; no size limits The lake whitefish fishery in FMZ 4 is primarily allocated to the commercial food fishery. The sport fishery for lake whitefish appears to be marginally developing. Reviewing the catch and retain regulation in the future may need to be considered. Species at Risk: Lake Sturgeon found in FMZ 4 are part of the Northwestern Population and are designated as a ‘threatened’ species under the Endangered Species Act, 2007. Season: Closed all year 5.2 Exceptions One of the objectives in the Ecological Framework for Fisheries Management is to reduce the number of individual lake exceptions and standardize fishing regulations across the Fisheries Management Zones. The EFFM recommends simplification of the fishing regulations summary which includes streamlining exceptions to angling in each FMZ. Streamlining regulation exceptions contributes to public transparency of the fisheries management planning process and eliminates regulations that may be considered redundant as fisheries management planning moves away from a lake specific management approach to landscape or “broad scale” management. Although one of the objectives of the EFFM is regulation streamlining, there are still waterbodies and species that OMNR managers can rationalize the need to manage under an individual lake approach. Currently in FMZ 4 there are a total of 59 exceptions to the existing FMZ 4 regulations. Of these exceptions, 29 are related to fish sanctuaries, 9 are related to management of walleye, 8 are related to the management of lake trout, 9 are related to the management of muskellunge, and the remaining exceptions relate to closures or exceptions for all species.


The FMZ 4 Advisory Council reviewed each of the exceptions associated with lakes other than Specially Designated Waters, and indicated either their support of retaining, editing, or removing the exceptions (Appendix 1.0). 5.2.1 Cedar River Watershed Sanctuary Dates The Cedar River Watershed (former Fishing Division 22A) was established in 1997 to facilitate the implementation of new angling regulations recommended by the steering committee of the Cedar River Watershed Plan. In 1998, to assist in the rehabilitation of walleye populations, several fish sanctuaries were established to protect pre and post spawning walleyes. In 2008, Fisheries Management Zones (FMZ) replaced Fishing Divisions as the fisheries planning and management units in Ontario. FMZ boundaries are based on ecological factors and angler use patterns such as: provincial climate zones, watersheds, fishing pressure and access. Fisheries within a zone are expected to react similarly to external changes, pressures and management actions such as angling regulations. Presently there are two different closed fishing sanctuary dates within FMZ 4 to protect pre and post spawning walleyes: April 1 to May 31 and April 1 to June 14. The shorter closed season is applied to waters bodies within the Cedar River Watershed, while the longer closed season is applied in water bodies both north and south of the Cedar River Watershed. Since climate (growing degree days) is similar across the zone, the Advisory Council and OMNR agreed that if sanctuaries are required, then the longer closed season is more appropriate to protect pre and post spawning walleyes and should be applied to all sanctuaries within the zone. This is consistent with the draft walleye tool kit and direction within the EFFM. 5.2.2 Areas of Special Interest The Watcomb Lake Chain (within the Ignace Area) and the Sydney Lake Area (within the Kenora District) are exception areas that were created to address concerns of over-exploitation of the fisheries resources. These zones have regulations that are different from the remainder of the zone. The OMNR committed to reviewing both of these zones with the FMZ 4 Advisory Council to seek input on how they should be managed. 5.2.1.1 Watcomb Lake Chain The Watcomb Chain of Lakes, located approximately 60 kilometres northeast of Ignace, includes Watcomb Lake, Whiterock Lake, Young Lake and Elva Lake. In 1998 exceptions to the fishing regulations were implemented in the Watcomb Chain of Lakes to address concerns of over-exploitation of the walleye populations. Creel surveys conducted in 1991 and 1994 suggested that fishing pressure was high relative to the estimated productive capacity for the lakes. Index netting conducted in 1996 and 1998 did not indicate that walleye populations were displaying major signs of stress. Public concern regarding the fishing quality of the lakes resulted in consultation on the issue and the implementation of new regulations on the chain of lakes in 1998, which included:


• Sport and Conservation catch and retain limit of 2 walleye in Watcomb Lake • Catch and Release only for walleye in Whiterock, Young and Elva Lakes

When the regulation changes were implemented, OMNR made the commitment to re-evaluate the lakes in five years time, and remove the exceptions if data indicated that the lakes had healthy walleye populations. At the time the exceptions were implemented, the Regional walleye catch and retain limit was six. In 1999, the Regional walleye catch and retain limits were reduced from six to four, with not more than one greater than 46 cm. Fall Walleye Index Netting was conducted in 2002 and 2003 on the lakes to reassess the status of their walleye populations. Results from this monitoring indicated that the walleye populations in Watcomb, Young and Elva Lakes were very healthy. In fact, the walleye catch per unit effort on three of the lakes far exceeded Regional averages and represented some of the highest catches in the Region. Whiterock Lake did not exhibit the same walleye population health as the other three lakes. However, Whiterock Lake has a different community structure (large populations of both northern pike and perch) than the other three lakes, and cannot be expected to have the same quality walleye fishery. In 2009, OMNR reviewed the rational and need for continuing the regulation exceptions on the Watcomb Chain of Lakes. Based on the health and strength of the walleye populations within these water bodies, OMNR presented two options to the public for consideration:

• Option 1: Implementing the standard sportfish limit of 4 walleye on all lakes • Option 2: Implementing a conservation limit of 2 walleye on all lakes

However, public consultation did not result in a clear preferred option and as a result the Watcomb Lake Chain regulations were deferred to the FMZ 4 Fisheries Management Planning process. The FMZ 4 Advisory Council reviewed the Watcomb Chain of Lakes history. The Advisory Council felt and OMNR agreed that the regulations should only have remained in place until the walleye populations had recovered, and once this had been accomplished the exceptions should be removed. The Advisory Council agreed with OMNR there is no longer any biological reason to maintain the exceptions on these lakes. OMNR and the Advisory Council recognize removing the exceptions from the Watcomb Chain of Lakes may increase angling effort and harvest on these water bodies. However, it is believed the present zone-wide regulation (Sport - 4 and Conservation – 2, with not more than one greater than 46 cm) is sufficient to maintain high quality fisheries in Watcomb, Elva and Young Lakes. The Advisory Council and OMNR believe removing the exceptions is consistent with the landscape approach of the EFFM, as well as the commitment to remove exceptions when they are no longer required.. The Advisory Council recognized that the tourist establishments located on the Watcomb Chain of Lakes have adjusted their marketing approach to reflect the walleye exceptions on these lakes. OMNR agreed that removing the exceptions should be delayed until 2015 or 2016 to allow industry time to adjust their marketing strategies.


Additional Considerations for the Watcomb Lake Chain OMNR presented the option of maintaining the conservation limit (Sport -2, Conservation -2) on Watcomb Lake, and implementing this limit on the other 3 lakes. The Advisory Council did not support this option. The Advisory Council strongly felt that the exceptions are unnecessary and the lakes should be streamlined to the zone-wide walleye regulations. 5.2.1.2 Sydney Lake Area The Sydney Lake Area was created during the 1996-2016 Forest Management Plan for the Kenora Management Unit when it became evident that no consensus on forest operations could be made within the Sydney Lake area. Disagreements over access for timber harvesting, while protecting remote tourism values, led to the deferral of proposed blocks and to the development of a pilot Alternative Dispute Resolution process. Of particular concern was the proposed construction of an access road and bridge in the Sydney Lake area. Through the Alternative Dispute Resolution process an agreement was reached (North Kenora Pilot Project Agreement or NKPPA) which included revised forest stand allocations for harvest, non-resident Crown land camping restrictions, road corridor realignments, road access restrictions and controls, designated tourism lakes and changes in fishing (adoption of conservation limits for resident and non-resident anglers) and hunting regulations. Prior to the initiation of forestry operations, OMNR acted upon the agreement and conservation fishing catch and retain limits for both resident and non-resident anglers within the Sydney Lake Area were implemented in 2000. The effective term of the agreement was for a five year period commencing with the initiation of forest operations in the Sydney Lake area. For a number of forestry-related reasons the Sydney Lake Road and bridge crossing did not proceed, and the 2006-2026 Kenora Forest FMP dropped the proposed road and bridge at Sydney Lake Falls. Requests from stakeholder groups to rescind the angling regulation changes made to accommodate the Sydney Lake Area caused the OMNR to revisit the NKPPA in 2006/2007. The proposal to remove conservation limits for resident anglers within the Sydney Lake Area was approved in 2007. This was consistent with objectives identified in the Ecological Framework for Fisheries Management to streamline the regulations within FMZ’s. Conservation limits for non-resident anglers within the Sydney Lake Area were maintained at the request of the tourism industry (Appendix 1.0). Reduced limits for non-residents of Canada is consistent with differential regulations on Specially Designated Waterbodies such as Rainy Lake, Lake of the Woods, and Winnipeg River that experience a high degree of non-resident use, and for non-residents camping on Crown Land. The current regulations for the Sydney Lake Area are:

• Non-resident catch and retain limits of: S:2, C:2 for walleye, not more than one greater than 46 cm S:1, C:1 for bass, must be less than 35 cm from Jan. 1 – June 30 & Dec. 1 to Dec. 31 S:2, C:2 for northern pike, none between 70-90 cm & not more than 1 greater than 90 cm S:0, C:0 for muskellunge


S:25, C: 25 for yellow perch S:1, C:1 for lake trout S:6, C:6 for lake whitefish

In 2007, the OMNR committed to reviewing all existing exceptions with Advisory Councils to determine whether they were still required. As a result, the FMZ 4 Advisory Council considered information presented from both the OMNR and tourist operators from the Sydney Lake Area regarding the underlying rationale and objectives of the NKKPA. The Advisory Council noted that OMNR may have been premature in implementing the conservation fishing catch and retain limits in 2000, before any forestry work commenced. The forest industry had indicated to OMNR that harvesting and road construction in the Sydney Lake area would proceed as soon as possible once an agreement was reached. Because forestry operations did not proceed, the fishing exceptions should not have been implemented. The Advisory Council considered the option of removing the exception regulations in order to be consistent with the landscape approach for fisheries management. Removing the exceptions would also make the regulations easier for the public to understand and for OMNR to enforce. The tourism industry did not support this approach. Since the implementation of these regulations, tourist operators within the Sydney Lake Area have marketed and managed their operations as ‘high quality trophy’ fishing experiences. Sydney Lake Area representatives presented the Advisory Council with revenue figures from establishments within the area. With at least 7 lodges and over 40 outpost camps utilizing ‘trophy’ marketing strategies any changes to the current regulations, may have significant economic impacts to these operators. The FMZ 4 Advisory Council recommended to OMNR that the exceptions in the Sydney Lake Area, restricting non-resident harvest should remain in place. The Advisory Council acknowledged that although the original reasons for implementing the regulation changes never came to fruition, the current regulation restricting non-resident harvest is not only supported by the affected tourist operators, but also by the public and the OFAH Advisory Council representatives. The Advisory Council and OMNR also gave consideration to the fact that these regulations apply across a large geographic area with a significant number of lakes, as opposed to an individual lake, and this is consistent with the landscape management approach. The Advisory Council also recognized that although the exceptions are differential (only apply to non-resident anglers) they are the same catch and retain limits that apply to non-residents of Canada who are camping on Crown land in FMZ’s 2, 4, 6 and parts of FMZ 5. Additional Considerations for the Sydney Lake Area The tourist operators from the Sydney Lake area indicated that although they are supportive of the non-resident conservation limits currently in place, their preference would be to re-implement the exceptions to apply to resident anglers as well. The tourist operators indicated that there is a perceived increase in anglers snowmobiling into the Sydney Lake Area from across the Manitoba border, and in order to preserve the established trophy fisheries, the regulations should be re-applied to resident anglers as well. OMNR enforcement has found little evidence of winter angling in these areas and there are currently no winter creel results to support the claim of high snowmobile traffic into the Sydney Lake Area. The majority of the lakes in the area are fly-in access only and presently non-resident anglers staying at tourist facilities contribute the greatest


angling effort and harvest. Anglers and OFAH representatives on the Advisory Council, and OMNR indicated that they would not endorse this amendment. The Advisory Council considered whether extending the Sydney Lake Area regulation across the entire FMZ 4 was a viable management option. This would be consistent with the landscape approach for fisheries management, and the regulations are the same as the catch and retain limits for non-residents of Canada camping on Crown land. The Advisory Council agreed that implementing the regulation across the Zone would simplify the regulations and increase conservation measures for all sport fish species. Tourism representatives were supportive of considering the expansion of the regulation in the future, but felt that present economic conditions were not appropriate at this time. However, the Advisory Council tourism representatives agreed that now is the time to start dialogue with their industry counterparts to determine whether this regulation should be considered when this plan is reviewed in 5 years. The Advisory Council requested OMNR ensure that future FMZ 4 Broadscale Monitoring (BsM) include sufficient lakes from the Sydney Lake Area in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the Sydney Lake Area regulations in comparison to the Zone regulations. Effort surveys should also include sufficient lakes from the Sydney Lake Area to document summer and winter effort in comparison to the remainder of FMZ 4. 5.3 Habitat Management Achievement of the species specific objectives of this Plan is dependant on suitable habitat quality and quantity. Suitable habitat to support healthy fish populations is a necessary requirement to ensure that fish populations can be managed to provide social and economic benefits in a sustainable manner. While the Advisory Council and OMNR felt that fish habitat is generally in good shape overall on a zone-wide basis, there are some stressors which have had impacts on fish habitat or have the potential to negatively affect fish habitat. Development activities including mining, forestry, hydroelectric development, roads and water crossings, and cottage subdivisions have the potential to reduce fish populations below acceptable levels by degrading or destroying fish habitat and increasing exploitation through increased access. Waterpower production is an activity that currently impacts fish habitat and has the potential to result in significantly more impacts as new facilities are developed. Impacts of existing waterpower development are related to management of head pond levels, the provision of downstream water flows and levels and the restriction or elimination of fish passage. Water management planning in recent years has resulted in the recognition of fish habitat as an important value which must be taken into account when balancing the interests of power producers, recreational users and property owners in the development of water management plans for existing waterpower facilities. There is recognition that tradeoffs between competing interests are necessary in the management of water flows and levels for existing waterpower facilities and the movement towards more natural flow regimes at existing facilities is viewed by the Advisory Council as a very positive development. The development of new waterpower facilities was seen as having potentially large impacts on fish habitat which could in turn affect achievement of the management objectives in this plan. While the Advisory Council recognizes the need to develop new waterpower facilities as an alternative to the burning of fossil fuels, they agreed that a more strategic approach to the location of new facilities is necessary. They


felt that the potential impacts to fish habitat should be a priority consideration in the release of new waterpower sites. Mining and peat extraction are other activities which could potentially have widespread impacts on fish habitat. The disruption of hydrological regimes and the mobilization of high levels of methyl mercury are impacts that should be thoroughly researched before any large scale mining or peat extraction is considered. The effects of timber harvesting on fish habitat is also a concern. In particular, the impacts of new road networks, water crossings and shoreline timber harvesting practices (removal of shoreline buffers) were concerns raised by the Advisory Council. While the habitat issues discussed above have the potential to directly impact fish habitat, climate change is an issue that has the potential to significantly alter fish habitat in the longer term. Under a warming climate scenario it is expected that fish communities will be significantly altered, with species that currently dominate fish communities being replaced by other species better adapted to warmer conditions. In order to understand and adapt to changes in fish communities brought about by a changing environment it is essential to broaden the focus of fisheries monitoring from the traditional species-focused approach with an emphasis on managing exploitation using a broader, ecosystem-based approach which monitors changes in fish communities and trophic structure across the landscape and over time. The Advisory Council endorses the FMZ Broadscale Monitoring program and feels that its fish community based approach will provide essential information for managing exploitation in the short term and fish community changes in the longer term. Protection of fish habitat is a responsibility of the federal government which uses the Fisheries Act administered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) to protect fish and fish habitat; ensure passage of fish and prevention of pollution that can have detrimental impacts on fish populations. An important concept of DFO’s fish habitat policy is the principle of “no net loss” which requires that projects either avoid impacts to fish habitat or provide compensation to maintain the amount of fish habitat. To meet DFO’s fish habitat policy of “no net loss” of fish habitat, any project which has the potential of impacting fish habitat must undergo an assessment to determine whether it will result in a harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat. If it is determined that a HADD will occur, the proponent must modify their project to either avoid impacts to fish habitat or provide compensation to maintain the amount of fish habitat. Ontario works with DFO to help achieve the requirements of the Fisheries Act through the “Fish Habitat Referral Protocol for Ontario”, although this agreement is currently being modified given recent changes to the Fisheries Act. In addition to the federal Fisheries Act, Ontario has a number of acts and regulations that require protection of fish habitat including Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, Public Lands Act, Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, Planning Act and Endangered Species Act. OMNR has a number of guidelines (e.g. Site and Stand Guides for forestry operations) and tools such as work permits, water management and forest management planning, and lakeshore capacity assessment handbook to assist in habitat protection. In addition to managing impacts to fish habitat, these tools also allow MNR to consider the impact of development on changes to exploitation of fish populations.


Current Management Direction At the provincial level, fish habitat protection is identified as a goal under the Strategic Plan for Ontario’s Fisheries SPOF II (OMNR, 1992) which provides strategic level direction for the management of Ontario’s fisheries resources. The following goal was established for the management of the fisheries resources in Ontario: -To promote healthy aquatic ecosystems that provide sustainable benefits, contributing to society’s present and future environment, wholesome food, employment and income, recreational activity, and cultural heritage. The specific fisheries management objectives described to meet this goal are: -To protect healthy aquatic ecosystems; -To rehabilitate degraded aquatic ecosystems; and -To improve cultural, social and economic benefits from Ontario’s fisheries resources. This direction is also reflected in Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy (Ontario Biodiversity Council, 2011) which identified as one of its goals to protect, restore and recover Ontario’s genetic, species and ecosystem diversity and related ecosystem functions and processes. Objectives and Actions for Habitat Management in FMZ 4 The Advisory Council recognizes and supports the ability of the existing Provincial and Federal legislation and guidelines to protect fish habitat in FMZ 4. The following habitat management objectives and actions were developed for FMZ 4:

1. Maintain or enhance healthy aquatic ecosystem structure, function and diversity that support healthy, sustainable, naturally-reproducing native fish communities in FMZ 4.

Action: All development in FMZ 4 must recognize and consider the management objectives described in this plan and ensure the potential effects from the development activity will not impact fish habitat in a manner that would result in the inability to achieve the established objectives.

2. Where feasible, restore harmfully altered or degraded habitats to support the life history requirements for fish.

Action: Identify degraded habitats and develop and implement restoration plans. Action: Identify water crossings that impact fish spawning and impede fish passage and develop and implement remedial actions.

Monitoring Strategies for Fish Habitat and Development Management in FMZ 4 The following monitoring activities may be used to assess whether the management action are effectively achieving the objectives:


1. Continue water quality assessment through the Broadscale Monitoring (BsM)

program. 2. Support ongoing development of ecosystem level indicators based on BsM

assessment to determine status of ecosystem structure and health.

3. Continue habitat inventory program and habitat assessments related to forestry water crossings as well as inventory critical fish habitats such as spawning sites.

4. Continue Participation in the Northwest Region Lake Temperature Monitoring

Program on FMZ 4 lakes. 5.4 Invasive Species As stated in the FMZ 4 Background Document, invasive alien species are the second most significant threat to biodiversity, after habitat loss. In their new ecosystems, invasive alien species become predators, competitors, parasites, hybridizers and diseases of native flora and fauna. Prevention is the most effective management strategy for invasive species, because once an invasive species becomes established, range expansion is almost inevitable and elimination is rarely a viable option. OMNR describes an alien species as a plant, animal or micro-organism introduced into an area beyond the species natural past or present range as a result of human actions. Introductions of alien species may be deliberate or accidental, beneficial or harmful, from other continents, neighbouring countries or from other ecosystems within Canada (OMNR 2008a). Alien species are sometimes introduced intentionally to provide benefits to society and to ecosystems (for example, authorized fish stocking and intentional introductions of biological controls (OMNR 2008a)). In these cases, alien species are considered to be introduced rather than invasive. Invasive species are those harmful alien species whose introduction or spread threatens the environment, the economy and/or society, including human health. This definition may include species which are native to Ontario but have been introduced to a new area due to human activity. Introduced species and invasive species represent two distinctive groups in terms of management intent but may overlap with respect to consequence where an introduced species may become an invasive. For example, the planned introduction of a fish species may be undertaken to enhance fishing opportunities on the receiving waterbody. The same species moved to another waterbody without environmental consideration can have significant negative consequences and become invasive. For both groups the pathway for introduction into an ecosystem can be either intentional or unintentional. In all cases the establishment of invasive/introduced species will have impacts to some degree on native aquatic communities. From a social or economic viewpoint, opinions can differ between people on whether a species is introduced or invasive. For example, some anglers consider smallmouth bass a desirable species, while others view it as an unwelcome newcomer. For the purposes of this plan, the primary indicator of whether a species is considered an invasive species


or not will be whether it has a negative impact on the diversity and/or function of the aquatic ecosystem. The threat of invasive species to Northwestern Ontario is a relatively new management consideration for fisheries management planning. However with the advent of climate change, warmer temperatures combined with escalating resource development interests in the north, and associated additional road access to new waterbodies are all contributing to the increasing likelihood that new invasive species will be introduced. Presently the only known invasive species in FMZ 4 is rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax). Smelt occur in 16 known lakes, all of which are near communities and major roads within the Zone. This species is banned as baitfish in FMZ 4, and anglers cannot possess or use them as bait. The threat of introduction of new invasive alien species to FMZ 4 is always present. Invasive species that have a high potential of introduction into the zone include spiny water flea (Bythotrephes longimanus) and rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus), both of which are present in adjacent zones (5 and 6) in Northwestern Ontario. Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS) is an infectious disease of fish and is a relatively new threat to the province of Ontario. Until 2011, the waters of Lakes Ontario, Erie, and Huron and their connecting waterways and adjacent tributaries up to the first impassable barrier for all fish species were considered positive for VHS. In 2011, VHS was detected in Lake Simcoe. There is also concern about the current lack of public understanding on how invasive species gain access to waterbodies and the impact these species can have on native ecosystems. Examples of invasive species concerns discussed by the Advisory Council include:

introduction of fish species either accidentally by anglers dumping unused bait in lakes, or intentional introduction of species into lakes by anglers or bait harvesters;

the lack of general knowledge and potential impacts of other potential invasive such as rusty crayfish and spiny water flea;

the need to understand how invasive species enter FMZ 4 waterbodies; effects of invasive species on fish communities; and impacts of these species on the amount and quality of existing native fish populations available for harvest;

the potential for further introductions of invasive species from adjacent zones by anglers (via boats/bait/ float planes, etc);

introduction of invasive species via sampling equipment and boats used by government agencies (i.e. OMNR) and consulting firms when undertaking scientific assessment and monitoring programs in different water bodies.

Current Management Direction Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy: Renewing Our Commitment to Protecting What Sustains Us (Ontario Biodiversity Council, 2011) identified as one of its goals to protect, restore and recover Ontario’s genetic, species and ecosystem diversity and related ecosystem functions and processes. Invasive alien species are identified as one of the potential threats to ecosystem diversity and ecosystem functions in Ontario.


Recently, the province released the Ontario Invasive Species Strategic Plan (OMNR 2012) with the objectives of: - reducing impacts of existing invaders; - prevent new invaders from arriving and surviving; and - halt the spread of existing invaders where possible. The goals of this plan were to identify actions and activities that would prevent harmful introductions before they occur; detect and identify invasive species before or immediately after they become established; respond rapidly to invasive species before they become established or spread; implement innovative management actions and take practical steps to protect against impacts of invasive species. Objectives and Actions for Invasive Species Management in FMZ 4 In applying and supporting the Provincial level direction to FMZ 4 invasive species management, the following objectives and actions were developed:

1. Prevent the introduction of aquatic invasive species into FMZ 4 waters.

Action: Promote and distribute education material throughout FMZ 4 regarding the impact of invasive species.

2. Where possible, manage existing invasive species to minimize the impacts on native species by halting their spread to other waterbodies.

Action: Support the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Invading Species Hotline by reporting the location of invasive species and promoting the available education material. Action: Review and implement OMNR policy for movement of boats and equipment between waterbodies, particularly those known to contain invasive species.

5.5 Education Education was identified by the FMZ 4 Advisory Council as their highest priority management objective for FMZ 4. As the Advisory Council considered the management objectives and actions for each individual fish species, it quickly became apparent that education is a very important function in the implementation of this plan, and maintaining the quality fisheries found in FMZ 4. Objectives for Education in FMZ 4 The FMZ 4 Advisory Council developed the following education objectives for the Zone:

1. To reduce the mortality of released fish.


2. To promote the use of alternative species to reduce angling pressure and harvest of walleye.

3. To promote the social value of FMZ 4 fish species and the angling opportunities that they support.

4. To increase the awareness of the economic value of FMZ 4 fisheries. 5. To increase public awareness and support of the FMZ 4 planning process and

management objectives and actions. 6. To increase tourism and public involvement in monitoring programs (i.e. angler

diaries, lake partnerships). Rationale The Advisory Council and OMNR agreed that increasing public awareness of fisheries management objectives and actions will result in greater understanding, appreciation, and support of the regulations. The majority of the education objectives are drawn directly from the individual species objectives, and the rationale for each of the objectives can be found throughout this plan. Management Actions for Education in FMZ 4 The education needs identified by the Advisory Council were extremely varied, and include: illustrating to anglers the effective methods for handling and releasing fish to reduce catch and release mortality; describing the fragility of lake trout; illustrating the correct filleting method for northern pike; promoting the consumption of bass as an alternative shore lunch option; and publishing an annual FMZ 4 Advisory Council update. All of the education pieces found throughout this plan are summarized in the table below. Implementation Many of the management actions for education include the distribution of posters or information to anglers. The Advisory Council agreed that utilizing Fish-on-Line would be an effective method of implementation, as would be making use of local media (fishing shows, local outdoor writers, etc.) to promote extension pieces. Bait shops, sport shows, fishing tournaments and hockey arenas are also venues that should be used to promote material to the public. The Advisory Council members representing the tourist industry indicated a high level of interest in displaying effective, visual posters in their lodges and cabins. The OMNR acknowledged that they alone cannot implement all of the education and outreach initiatives described in this plan. A task team of the Advisory Council members and OMNR staff has been established to create an implementation schedule (refer to Section 9.0) and ensure that the education actions are fulfilled. Partnership opportunities and utilizing materials created by other zones, provinces or states will be examined as part of the implementation process.


Summary of Education Management Actions Management Issue Management Action

Describe the value of the walleye resource Illustrate correct handling and release techniques Promote the value of large female walleye Exploitation (walleye)

Describe effects of catching walleye in deep water Promote and encourage consumption of pike as an alternative shore lunch option Illustrate correct filleting method of northern pike Exploitation (northern pike) Illustrate correct catch and release methods for northern pike

Exploitation (lake trout) Describe the fragility of lake trout Promote and encourage angling for bass Promote and encourage consumption of bass as an alternative shore lunch option Increase awareness of the impacts of angling mature male bass while they are guarding nests Increase awareness of the impacts of angling deep water bass, particularly during the fall and winter Increase public awareness of the risks associated with unauthorized introductions Work with OFAH to develop education materials related to invasive species

Exploitation (smallmouth bass)

Describe why we are managing bass Promote and distribute material regarding the impact of invasive species on native fish populations Invasive Species Support the OFAH by reporting invasive species to the Invading Species Hotline

5.6 Commercial Fishing There are 27 commercial fishing licences in FMZ 4, the vast majority of which are held by First Nation communities. Presently FMZ 4 Districts report that 19 of the licences are active. Of the active licences, 7 are issued for SDW’s, and the remaining 12 are on non-SDW lakes. SDW’s account for the vast majority of the available quota, with lake whitefish as the most important commercially fished species (88%), followed by lesser amounts of northern pike, walleye and perch. Previously, the direction for the management of commercial fisheries in FMZ 4 (including allowable gear, species and quota targets) was documented in individual District Fisheries Management Plans 1987-2000 (DFMP’s). Recognizing that the FMZ 4 Fisheries Management Plan will replace these plans, and a new strategic policy for Ontario’s Commercial Fisheries was completed in 2011, it is essential the FMZ 4 Fisheries Management Plan contains commercial fisheries management objectives that are reflective of the present industry and are consistent with new Provincial Commercial Fisheries Policy.


Provincial Management Direction for Commercial Fisheries In December 2011, OMNR released the Strategic Policy for Ontario’s Commercial Fisheries (OMNR 2011b). This policy outlines the goals, principles, objectives and management strategies to be applied to commercial fisheries management at a provincial level as follows: Goal for Commercial Fisheries in Ontario

To develop and support commercial fishing opportunities in Ontario waters while ensuring the long term sustainability of fish populations, safeguarding ecosystem function and biodiversity, meeting Aboriginal and treaty rights obligations and contribute to the socio-economic needs of all the people of Ontario.

Guiding Principles for Commercial Fisheries in Ontario The following basic principles or statements help form the foundation for the management of resources utilized by commercial fisheries. Many of these originate in other MNR strategic policies and directives. They apply to all natural resources and are stated here in the context of commercial fisheries.

Fish resources belong to all the people of Ontario. Commercial fishing is economically and culturally important to people of Ontario. Fish resources are limited and therefore, there must be a limit to their use. OMNR has the responsibility and authority to manage fisheries and fishing

activity in Ontario. Fish resources have value; the use of which should provide a fair return

(ecological, social, or economic) to the people of Ontario. Decision making should be adaptive, transparent, and proactive, taking into

consideration the best available science and existing knowledge. First allocation of the resource will always go to conservation of the resource. Ontario is committed to fulfilling its constitutional obligations with respect to

Aboriginal and Treaty rights including obligations to consult and where appropriate, accommodate.

Bi-national commitments have an important role in the decision making process used to manage Ontario’s fishery resource for shared waters between Canada and the United States.

Partnerships, Fisheries Management Zone Councils, community-based stewardship programs and agreements with Aboriginal communities enhance Ontarian’s connection to the fisheries resource.

To meet the goal and follow these guiding principles, the Strategic Policy for Ontario’s Commercial Fisheries identified three broad objectives to guide commercial fisheries management throughout the province:

1. Embrace Ecological Sustainability Maintain and restore ecosystem diversity and fish populations that provide for long term maintenance and restoration of resources for Ontario commercial fisheries.


2. Sustainable Economic Development

Safe and environmentally sound commercial fisheries that provide for sustainable economic opportunities.

3. Societal and Cultural Values Commercial fisheries contribute to the social and cultural welfare of all the people of Ontario both now and in the future.

Objectives and Actions for Commercial Fisheries Management in FMZ 4 OMNR developed management objectives and actions for commercial fishing in FMZ 4 that are consistent with the Strategic Policy for Ontario’s Commercial Fisheries. Implementation of these objectives and actions as described below will involve working in partnership with commercial fishers and the commercial fishing industry. In applying this provincial level direction to FMZ 4 commercial fisheries management, the MNR has developed the following objectives and actions. Commercial fisheries management in FMZ 4 will support commercial fishing opportunities in a manner that:

1. Meets Aboriginal and Treaty rights obligations and contributes to the social and cultural welfare of all the people of Ontario both now and in the future.

2. Supports an industry with harvest levels that sustain healthy fish

populations over the long term within the zone.

Action: Use both science and traditional knowledge of ecosystem health and population criteria to review and confirm existing quotas are within sustainable harvest levels. Action: Establish science and traditional knowledge indicators to ensure commercial fisheries are managed in a sustainable manner.

3. Balances current biological, social, and economic values when considering

new commercial food fishing opportunities.

4. Promotes the development and use of ecologically sustainable fishing practices.

Action: Work with commercial fishers and industry to develop and promote Best Management Practices (gear, seasons, etc.) that reduce incidental catch of non-target species.

5. Ensure healthy, wholesome fish are available to the public.

Action: Allocate and licence commercial fisheries according to current fish health and safety standards and regulations.


Monitoring Strategies for Commercial Fisheries Management in FMZ 4 The following monitoring activities are proposed to assess whether the management actions are effectively achieving the objectives:

1. Conduct Broadscale Monitoring (BsM) for fish population health assessment on

commercially fished lakes.

2. Develop and initiate a commercial catch sampling program with commercial fishers.

3. Review and ensure commercial fish licencing and reporting are consistent across

the Zone. 6.0 Public and Aboriginal Community Involvement A detailed summary of the Public and Aboriginal Community Involvement program is available in a companion document to this Fisheries Management Plan. 6.1 Fisheries Management Zone 4 Advisory Council

As one of the three components of the Ecological Framework for Fisheries Management in Ontario, enhancing public and Aboriginal involvement in the management planning process was integral to the development of the FMZ 4 Fisheries Management Plan. The Fisheries Management Zone 4 Advisory Council is comprised of representatives from a diverse group of local stakeholders and Aboriginal Communities. Through all stages of the preparation of the management plan the Advisory Council provided insight and information that helped to shape the management plan to reflect and balance local interests and concerns.

Stakeholder Group FMZ 4 Advisory Council Member Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Dennis Kristjanson Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Roy DeCorte Baitfish Industry Joseph Bernier Commercial Fishing Industry Ralph Hale Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters (NOTO) Gene Halley Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters (NOTO) Alan Brandys Environmental Non-Governmental Organization

Angela Massey

Outdoor Communicator & Youth Groups Drew Myers (Advisory Council Chair) Unaligned Angler (Red Lake) Chris Oakes Outdoor Writer and Professional Angler Jeff Gustafson Unaligned Angler (Sioux Lookout) Phil Berard


Aboriginal Community FMZ 4 Advisory Council Member Wabaseemoong Independent Nations (Whitedog)

George Land

Asubpeeschoseewagong Netum Anishinabek (Grassy Narrows)

Rudy Turtle

Lac Seul First Nation Chris Angeconeb Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation Robert Parenteau 6.2 Aboriginal Community Involvement Aboriginal involvement was strongly encouraged and sought at all stages of development of this Fisheries Management Plan. 6.3 Public Consultation Program The Advisory Council requested that information on the Fisheries Management Planning process be presented to the public though methods that were engaging and accessible. Individuals from the FMZ 4 OMNR team and the Advisory Council attended the following events to announce and promote the planning process prior to the First Stage of Public Consultation.

• Dryden Sport and Home Show: April 16-18th, 2010 • Sioux Lookout Trade Show: August 5-7th, 2010

6.3.1 Background Report Invitation to Participate An initial Invitation to Participate stage to present the Background Report for Fisheries Management in FMZ 4 was identified as an important step in public consultation by the Advisory Council. The purpose of this first Invitation to Participate was to engage interested members of the public in the preparation of the Fisheries Management Plan. At this stage, the Background Report and the Management Issues and Challenges identified by the Advisory Council were available for review and input.

The Invitation to Participate was distributed through the following methods:

• Letters to Stakeholders (July 19, 2010) • Letters to Aboriginal Communities (July 19, 2010) • Newspapers: Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal (July 21, 2010)

Kenora Daily Miner and News (July 21, 2010) Kenora Lake of the Woods Enterprise (July 24, 2010) The Northern Sun (July 21, 2010) Sioux Lookout Bulletin (July 21, 2010) Wawatay News (July 13, 2010) Dryden Observer (July 21, 2010) Ignace Driftwood (July 21, 2010) Fort France Times (July 21, 2010) Rainy River Record (July 21, 2010) Atikokan Progress (July 19, 2010)

• Policy Proposal Notice Published on the Environmental Registry


o Original Intended Date: July 24, 2010 o Actual Date: August 4th – September 20th, 2010

6.3.2 Draft Plan Consultation Draft Plan consultation provides an opportunity for the public to input on the proposed management objectives and actions to guide fisheries management in FMZ 4. Draft plan consultation consists of letters to Aboriginal communities and organizations, letters to stakeholders, posting on the Environmental Registry and meeting with Aboriginal communities and stakeholder groups at their request. Enhanced consultation, involving a scoped letter and meeting offer was also directed to parties with expressed interest in the Watcomb Chain of Lakes and the Cedar River Watershed. Draft Plan consultation notification was distributed through the following methods:

• Letters to Aboriginal Communities • Letters to Stakeholders • Enhanced Stakeholder Letters • Newspapers • Policy Proposal Notice Published on the Environmental Registry

The Draft Plan was also available at reading rooms set up at the OMNR District offices in Red Lake, Kenora, Sioux Lookout, Dryden, Ignace and Thunder Bay, on the OMNR website, and on the Environmental Registry for public review and comment. 6.3.3 Final Plan Inspection The Final Plan is expected to be available for final review in early 2013. The Final Plan will be available at reading rooms set up at the OMNR District offices in Red Lake, Kenora, Sioux Lookout, Dryden and Ignace, on the OMNR website, and on the Environmental Registry for public review and comment. 7.0 Ongoing Commitment to Monitoring One of the pillars of the Ecological Framework for Fisheries Management (EFFM) is the implementation of a Broadscale Monitoring (BsM) program. The landscape approach to fisheries management necessitates the random sampling of lakes across the landscape in order to determine overall zone fisheries status. Previous assessment work has tended to target ‘issue lakes’ and did not provide an unbiased sample of lakes across the zone. The intent of the BsM program is to sample each FMZ on a five year rotation. The protocol employs a mixed design with ‘fixed’ walleye and lake trout lakes as well as randomly selected ‘variable’ lakes. The fixed lakes were initially selected at random but will be re-sampled every 5 years, with the next BsM survey scheduled for FMZ 4 in 2014. Variable lakes are randomly re-selected for each sampling period. Due to fiscal constraints, variable lakes were not sampled in FMZ 4 during the first round of BsM in 2009. Fixed lakes are included in order to provide a faster indication of trends in fish populations within the zone, while the variable lakes will provide a more unbiased assessment of zone-wide fishery status. In order to address the guiding principles of


EFFM concerning an ecological approach to fisheries management and a commitment to the preservation of biodiversity, a departure from the traditional species based approach to fisheries monitoring is required. The Broadscale program utilizes a new gillnetting protocol which is designed to sample the entire fish community rather than targeting a particular species as many of the previous netting protocols have done. In addition to sampling the fish community, the Broadscale program samples fish contaminant levels, habitat parameters (water chemistry, transparency, bathymetry and temperature) and lower trophic levels (zooplankton and benthos). Angling effort is also estimated using aerial effort surveys. This monitoring program will enable greatly improved fisheries management in two ways. First, trends in the abundance and population structure of currently favoured sport fish species will be assessed on a landscape basis and will provide information upon which to manage exploitation of the key fisheries in the short term. In the longer term the program will allow the development of improved yield models which will integrate exploitation, habitat and community factors to predict changes in carrying capacity related to long term environmental change. Broadscale monitoring represents a large ongoing commitment of resources. The Advisory Council considers this program to be an essential component of the EFFM and they feel that it is of critical importance for the OMNR to retain their commitment to this program for the long term. 8.0 Review and Amendment of the Fisheries Management Plan Management plans for fisheries management zones have a ten year term, with an internal review after five years. The review of the FMZ 4 plan will occur in 2018 after the next round of Broadscale Monitoring (anticipated to be completed in FMZ 4 in 2014). The FMZ 4 Advisory Council will be involved in the review of the management plan in 2018. Where a review identifies that certain sections of the management plan need to be updated it is only those portions of the plan that will be changed. Depending upon the nature of the changes, public consultation may or may not be required. Significant changes in plan direction will require further consultation with the public, stakeholder groups and Aboriginal communities. The nature and scope of consultation efforts will be determined by the OMNR District Manager, Dryden District. Amendment of the plan can occur prior to a review being conducted. It is anticipated that amendments to the plan would only occur if there was a significant management issue that affected fisheries across the zone. 9.0 Implementation Plan For the Final Plan, an implementation plan will be developed that will outline how the selected management actions will be completed, including who will be responsible for the actions, how they will be delivered and target delivery dates. Both OMNR and FMZ


4 Advisory Council members (or their affiliations) will have responsibilities in the implementation plan.

Management Action Responsibility Target Completion Date


References

Addison, P. 2011. Personal Communication. Fish Population Specialist, Science and Information Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Thunder Bay, Ontario.

Cano, T., and S. Parker. 2007. Characterization of Northwest Region Management Zones: Sport Fish Populations and Exploitation. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Northwest Science and Information, Thunder Bay, Ontario. Technical Report TR-140. 63 p.

Casselman, J.M. 2001. Status of Pike Population in Selected Northeast Region Walleye

Lakes in the Late 1990s: a Cursory Analysis and Review of Pike Data Collected in Fall Walleye Index Gill Netting in the Late 1990s: With an Addendum on Regulations and Size Limits. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Picton, Ontario. 10p.

Cooke, S. J., D. P. Philipp, J. f. Schreer, and R. S. McKinley. 2000. Locomotory

impairment of nesting male largemouth bass following catch-and-release angling. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20: 968-977

Edwards, E. A., G. Gebhart, and O. E. Maughan. 1983. Habitat Suitability Information:

Smallmouth Bass. U.S Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/10.36. 47p. Gablehouse, D.W. Jr. 1984. A length-categorization system to assess fish stocks. North

American Journal of Fisheries Management 4: 273–285. Groen, C.L., and T.A. Schroeder. 1978. Effects of water level management on walleye

and other coolwater fishes in Kansas reservoirs. Pages 278-283 in R.L. Kendall (ed). Selected coolwater fishes of North America. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 11.

Hartviksen, C and W. Momot. 1987. Fishes of the Thunder Bay Area of Ontario.

Wildwood Publications. 282 p. Hassler, T. J. 1970. Environmental influences on early development and year-class

strength of northern pike in Lakes Oahe and Sharpe, South Dakota. Trans. AM. Fish. Soc. 99:369-375

Hogg, S.E., N.P. Lester and H. Ball. 2010. 2005 Survey of Recreational Fishing in Canada: Results for Fisheries Management Zones in Ontario. Applied Research and Development Branch. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 32 p + appendices.

Holm, E., N. E. Mandrak, and M. E. Burridge. 2009. The ROM field guide to freshwater fishes of Ontario. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 462 p.

Inskip, P. D. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Northern Pike. U.S Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/10.17. 40 p.


Kerr, S.J., B.W. Corbett, N.J. Hutchinson, D. Kinsman, J.H. Leach, D. Puddister, L. Stanfield, and N.Ward. 1997. Walleye habitat: A synthesis of current knowledge with guidelines for conservation. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario. 82 p.

Kerr, S.J., A.J.Dextrase, N.P.Lester, C.A.Lewis, and H.J.Rietveld. 2004 Strategies for managing walleye in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario. 24 p.

Kieffer, J. D., M. R. Kubacki, F. J. S. Phelan, D. P. Philipp, and B. L. Tufts. 1993. Impacts of angling stress on nesting male smallmouth bass: Implications for catch and release angling.

Kieffer, J. D., M. R. Kubacki, F. J. S. Phelan, D. P. Philipp, and B. L. Tufts. 1995. Effects of catch-and-release angling on nesting male smallmouth bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124: 70-76.

McMahon, T.E., J.W. Terrell, and P.C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat suitability information:

Walleye. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/10.56. 43 pp. Ontario Biodiversity Council. 2011. Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy, 2011: Renewing our

Commitment to Protecting What Sustains Us. Ontario Biodiversity Council, Peterborough, ON.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 1992. Strategic Plan for Ontario’s

Fisheries SPOF II: An aquatic ecosystem approach to managing fisheries. Fisheries Section, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Natural Resources. 22 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2005c. Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy.

Ministry of Natural Resources. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2005a. A New Ecological Framework for

Recreational Fisheries Management in Ontario. Fisheries Section, Fish and Wildlife Branch.18 p.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2007. Guidelines for Managing the Recreational

Fishery for Brook Trout in Ontario. Fisheries Section, Fish and Wildlife Branch. 15 p.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2008. Protecting What Sustains Us –Ontario’s

Biodiversity Strategy 2008. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 44 p.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2008a. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Biodiversity/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_167267.html. April 4 2008.

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Biodiversity/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_167267.html

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Biodiversity/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_167267.html


Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2010. Background Information for the Development of a Fisheries Management Plan in Fisheries Management Zone 4. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Dryden District. 157 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2011a. Our Sustainable Future. Ministry

of Natural Resources. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2011b. Strategic Policy for Ontario’s Commercial

Fisheries 2011. Peterborough, ON. 4 pp. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. July 2012. Ontario Invasive Species Strategic

Plan. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 58 pp. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2012b. Background Information for the

Development of a Fisheries Management Plan in Fisheries Management Zone 5. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Fort Frances District. 220 pp. + appendices

Philipp, D. P., C. A. Toline, M. F. Kubacki, D. B. F. Philipp, and F. J. S. Phelan. 1997. The impact of catch-and-release angling on the reproductive success of smallmouth bass and largemouth bass. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17: 557-567 Pierce, R.B. and C.M. Tomcko. 1998. Effects of discontinuing walleye stocking in fish

populations in Lake Thirteen. Investigational Report 463, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. 37 p.

Regier, H.A., J.C. Applegate, and R.A. Ryder. !969. The ecology and management of

the walleye in western Lake Erie. Great Lakes Fish Comm. Tech. Rep. 15. 101p. Ridgway, M. S. and B. J. Shuter. 1997. Predicting the effects of angling for nesting male

smallmouth bass on production of age-0 fish with an individual-based model. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17: 568-580.

Ryder, R.A. and S.R. Kerr. 1978. The adult walleye in the percid community – a niche

definition on feeding behaviour and food specificity in selected coolwater fishes of North America. Edited by: R. Kendall. Am. Fish. Soc. Special Publication, 11: 39-51.

Ryder, R. A., S.R. Kerr, K.H. Loftus, and H.A. Regier. 1974. The morphoedaphic index,

a fish yield estimator - review and evaluation. J. Fish. Res. Board. Can. 31:663-688.

Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184.

Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. 966 p. Selinger, W., Lowman, D., Kaufman, S., and Malette, M. 2006. The status of lake trout

populations in northeastern Ontario (2000–2005). Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Timmins, Ont.


Vander Zanden, M.J., Casselman, J.M., and J.B. Rasumssen. 1999. Stable isotope evidence for the food web consequences of species invasions in lakes. Nature 401: 464-467.


Appendices

Appendix 1.0. Regulation Exceptions and Rationale to Retain, Edit or Remove (does not include SDW’s)

Lake District Exception Regulation Recommendation & Rationale Agimak River and Little Indian Lake downstream from Sandbar Lake to the mouth of the Agimak River where it enters Indian Lake - Gour Twp.

Dry Fish sanctuary - no fishing from Apr. 1 - June 14.

Maintain – significant walleye spawning and staging area. Walleye are susceptible to over-harvest during specified dates. Originally requested by residents and supported through consultation.

Barnard Creek (50°06’N., 91°51’W.) between Fourbay Lake and Eady Lake.



Bruce Lake - from Bruce Creek at Hwy. 105 north to, and including, the south half of Bruce Lake.

RL Fish sanctuary - no fishing from Apr. 1 - June 14.

Maintain – significant walleye spawning and staging area. Walleye are susceptible to over-harvest during specified dates.

Camp Creek and part of Indian Lake - Gour Twp.



Cedar Lake (50°12’N., 93°08’W.).

Ken Muskellunge must be greater than 137 cm (54 in.).

Maintain – supported by science and policy.

Cedar Lake (Louise Rapids, Nelson Lake).

Ken Fish sanctuary - no fishing from Apr. 1 - May 31.

Maintain sanctuary but adjust date to April 1 – June 14 to be consistent across FMZ 4. Part of the Cedar River Watershed strategy to rehabilitate walleye populations.

Cedarbough Lake and all connecting streams to Little

SL Lake trout closed all year.

Maintain – put in place to protect over-exploited lake trout fishery that was on the verge of collapse.


Lake District Exception Regulation Recommendation & Rationale Vermilion Lake - Jordan, Drayton, Vermilion and Pickerel Twps.

Monitoring and assessment work continues.

Cliff Lake - at Hwy. 105 (50°10’N., 93°18’W.).



Cloudlet Lake and connecting streams.

SL

Fish sanctuary - no fishing from Apr. 1 - June 14. Only artificial lures may be used. Only one barbless hook may be used. Smallmouth bass S - 0 and C - 0. Smallmouth bass S - 0 and C - 0. Northern pike S - 0 and C - 0. Muskellunge S - 0 and C - 0.

Maintain – Regulation allows angling to occur in what used to be a year-round sanctuary for muskellunge, pike and bass. The Advisory Council indicated the need for OMNR to commit to monitoring and assessing this lake to determine if this exception is necessary. The Advisory Council questioned the need to have closed bass and northern pike fisheries when the aim is to protect muskellunge.

Confusion Lake (50°40'N., 94°09'W.).

RL Muskellunge must be greater than 91 cm (36 in.).


Elva Lake (49°52’N., 91°10’W.).

Dry Walleye S - 0 and C - 0.

Remove – the Advisory Council felt exception is no longer warranted; refer to ‘Watcomb Chain of Lakes’ text for further rationale.

English River - from an unnamed island at Talking Falls to latitude 49°33’45”N. drawn across Franks Lake.



Flat Lake (50°57'N., 93°57'W.).



Graystone Lake - from Hwy. 599 to a line drawn across Graystone Lake at 91°03’13”W.

Dry Walleye open from Jan. 1 - Mar. 31 & June 15 - Dec. 31.


Hooch Lake and connecting waters - Echo, Lomond, Pickerel and

SL

Fish sanctuary - no fishing from Jan. 1 - Fri. before the 3rd Sat. in June & Dec. 1 - Dec. 31.

Maintain – Regulation allows angling to occur in what used to be a year-round sanctuary for muskellunge, pike and bass. The


Lake District Exception Regulation Recommendation & Rationale Vermilion Twps. Only artificial lures may

be used. Only one barbless hook may be used. Smallmouth bass S - 0 and C - 0. Northern pike S - 0 and C - 0. Muskellunge S - 0 and C - 0.

Advisory Council indicated the need for OMNR to commit to monitoring and assessing this lake to determine if this exception is necessary. The Advisory Council questioned the need to have closed bass and northern pike fisheries when the aim is to protect muskellunge.

Jackfish Creek - from the outflow of Jackfish Lake to the inflow of Perrault Lake.

Ken Fish Sanctuary - no fishing from Apr. 1 - May 31.


Little Vermilion Lake and all connecting waters to Cedarbough Lake in Jordan, Drayton, Vermilion and Pickerel Twps.

SL Lake trout closed all year.

Maintain – put in place to protect over-exploited lake trout fishery that was on the verge of collapse. Monitoring and assessment work continues.

Longlegged Lake (50°45’N., 94°05’W.).



Maskinonge Lake and connecting waters - Echo, Lomond, Pickerel and Vermilion Twps.

SL

Fish sanctuary - no fishing from Jan. 1 - Fri. before the 3rd Sat. in June & Dec. 1 - Dec. 31. Only artificial lures may be used. Only one barbless hook may be used. Smallmouth bass S - 0 and C - 0. Northern pike S - 0 and C - 0. Muskellunge S - 0 and C - 0.

Maintain – Regulation allows angling to occur in what used to be a year-round sanctuary for muskellunge, pike and bass. The Advisory Council indicated the need for OMNR to commit to monitoring and assessing this lake to determine if this exception is necessary. The Advisory Council questioned the need to have closed bass and northern pike fisheries when the aim is to protect muskellunge.

Megikons River and Sowden Lake - that part downstream from confluence of Megikons River and Reba River to longitude 91°10’W drawn through Sowden Lake.



Mud Lake Ken Fish sanctuary - no Maintain sanctuary but adjust date


Lake District Exception Regulation Recommendation & Rationale (50°25'25"N., 93°14'07"W.) - all waters in the unsurveyed portion of the territorial District of Ken starting from where its mouth enters Wabaskang Lake - Ken District.

fishing from Apr. 1 - May 31.

to April 1 – June 14 to be consistent across FMZ 4. Part of the Cedar River Watershed strategy to rehabilitate walleye populations.

Nelson Lake - from a line between the western shoreline at approximately 50°13’09”N., 93°09’44”W. and the eastern shoreline at 50°13’05”N., 93°09’26”W. upstream including the north part of Nelson Lake and the creek and Richmond Lake- Ken District.



Ord River - from 50°15’22”N., 93°01’40”W. upstream to the top of first set of rapids at 50°12’55”N., 93°01’08”W. - Ken District.



Pakwash Lake - Fisherman’s Bay. RL

Fish sanctuary - no fishing from Apr. 1 - June 14.

Maintain - significant northern pike spawning and staging area. Pike are susceptible to over-harvest during specified dates. Tourism outfitters expressed interest in retaining the exception.

Perrault Falls and Wabaskang Lake - Town of Perrault Falls, between Hwy. 105 bridge and a point 500 m (1640 ft.) northeast of the bridge.




Lake District Exception Regulation Recommendation & Rationale Perrault Lake (50°17’N., 93°08’W.).



Post Creek - from the base of the waterfall in Post Bay to latitude 49°55’36“N. on Sturgeon Lake.



Puzzle Bay of Ord Lake south of the narrows at latitude 50°08’18”N.



Richmond Lake - Ken District. Ken

Fish sanctuary - no fishing from Apr. 1 - May 31.


Russett Lake (50°58'N., 93°55'W.).



Savant Lake (North Arm) - Savant Twp. (50°28'N., 90°25'W.).

SL Fish sanctuary - no fishing from Apr. 1 - June 14.

Maintain – significant walleye spawning and staging area. Walleye are susceptible to over-harvest during specified dates. Originally requested by tourist operators to ensure long term sustainability of the walleye fishery.

Sturgeon Lake described as Trappers Point Bay from 50°11’55”N. to the intersection of Trout Creek and Second Creek with Hwy. 599.



Sydney Lake Area - North Ken Pilot Project area. Waters within boundaries of Manitoba/Ontario border to south

Ken/RL

Non-resident walleye and sauger S - 2 and C - 2, not more than 1 greater than 46 cm (18.1 in.). Non-resident largemouth and smallmouth bass S - 1 and C - 1 must be less

Maintain – refer to Section 5.2.1.2 Sydney Lake Area


Lake District Exception Regulation Recommendation & Rationale shore of the English River System including Goshawk and Tourist lakes to Separation Rapids Bridge and South Pakwash Road to Leano Lake, south boundary of Woodland Caribou Provincial Park to Manitoba/Ontario border.

than 35 cm (13.8 in.) from Jan. 1 - June 30 and Dec. 1 - Dec. 31. Non-resident northern pike S - 2 and C - 2, none between 70-90 cm (27.6-35.4 in.), not more than 1 greater than 90 cm (35.4 in.) Non-resident muskellunge S - 0 and C - 0. Non-resident yellow perch S - 25 and C - 25. Non-resident lake trout S - 1 and C - 1. Non-resident lake whitefish S - 6 and C - 6.

Troutlake River - from the top of Whitefish Falls to a point 2 km (1.2 mi.) downstream where the river intersects Latitude 50°52’N.

RL Fish sanctuary - no fishing from Apr. 1 - June 14.


Unnamed Lake - Paul-Orr (50°59'N., 93°56'W.).



Unnamed Lake - Spires (50°58'N., 93°58'W.).



Vermilion River and tributaries between Elbow Lake and Expanse Lake.

SL Fish sanctuary - no fishing from Apr. 1 - June 14.


Watcomb Lake (49°51’N., 91°19’W.).

Dry Walleye S - 2 and C - 2, not more than 1 greater than 46 cm (18.1 in.).

Remove – Council felt exception is no longer warranted; refer to ‘Watcomb Chain of Lakes’ text for further rationale.

Whiterock Lake (49°51’N., 91°15’W.).


Remove – the Advisory Council felt exception is no longer warranted; refer to ‘Watcomb Chain of Lakes’ text for further rationale.

Young Lake (49°51’N., 91°13’W.).


Remove – Council felt exception is no longer warranted; refer to ‘Watcomb Chain of Lakes’ text for further rationale.

Draft Fisheries Management Plan for Fisheries Management ... · the Strategic Plan for Ontario...

Documents

Transcript of Draft Fisheries Management Plan for Fisheries Management ... · the Strategic Plan for Ontario...