Fishing Forum  Fishing Regs  
 Members |  Forum Rules |  Search
Pages: 1 2   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> herring on Nosbonsing?
Northhunter
Posted: Feb 22, 2018 - 11:23 pm


Smolt Trout
*

Group: Members
Posts: 104
Member No.: 3521
Joined: February 08, 2013




QUOTE (Sterling @ Feb 22, 2018 - 08:01 am)
QUOTE (Northhunter @ Feb 21, 2018 - 09:54 pm)
Could've been an oddball? Like the salmon caught in Nip some time ago?

I was also told of a splake caught in Nip. Odd because they apparently are not stocked anywhere near it.

Wait what?

Guy pulled a salmon through the ice maybe 15 years ago. It made the paper.. there was at least one picture and it was positively ID'd, although I forget exactly which species. The party that caught it wasn't sure of the legalities of keeping it, so it got released lol

The splake was relayed to me by the former owner of Lakair lodge. We used to banter back and forth about fisheries stuff so when someone showed it to him on the ice one day he asked me about it later.


PMEmail Poster
Top
Northhunter
Posted: Feb 22, 2018 - 11:30 pm


Smolt Trout
*

Group: Members
Posts: 104
Member No.: 3521
Joined: February 08, 2013




QUOTE (woodee123 @ Feb 22, 2018 - 10:08 am)
if it wasn't the fact that it was mnr testing i would have called bullshit. those numbers seem crazy seeing as know one on the lake or here or anyone else i have spoken to has ever heard of a Cisco being caught on nos.

Is there anyway to tell where the nets were pulled from? I know someone here posted pics of a net on shore with all the dead fish but i dont remember seeing any herring then either

Net results can get skewed. They are an indication of what's there, not necessarily what population densities are. A net at the right place and right time can have a school of perch swim into it and boom, you have a 50% catch per unit effort of one species.

PMEmail Poster
Top
Chuck Enwinde
Posted: Feb 23, 2018 - 12:35 am


Adult Trout
*

Group: Members
Posts: 271
Member No.: 6034
Joined: January 30, 2014




QUOTE (woodee123 @ Feb 22, 2018 - 11:08 am)
if it wasn't the fact that it was mnr testing i would have called bullshit. those numbers seem crazy seeing as know one on the lake or here or anyone else i have spoken to has ever heard of a Cisco being caught on nos.

Is there anyway to tell where the nets were pulled from? I know someone here posted pics of a net on shore with all the dead fish but i dont remember seeing any herring then either

You never know. I've fished a laker lake pretty extensively for ~20 years and caught exactly one herring from it. The lakers puke them up pretty regularly, so they sure know where to find them.

As for where they set the nets? They did 35 sets in that test so they would have covered a bunch of different spots and depths. If you're interested, contact your local MNR office. What I posted is a very brief summary of the data collected.

Here is the more recent testing, seems herring have dropped to 3rd place. As Northhunter points out, it is not an exact science.

https://www.sse.gov.on.ca/sites/MNR-PublicD...6382-51179.html

PMEmail Poster
Top
jeff22
Posted: Feb 23, 2018 - 02:52 pm


Alevin
*

Group: Newbies
Posts: 19
Member No.: 5589
Joined: January 09, 2014




I also caught a herring last weekend on nos....20 fow....was a first for me there

Attached Image

PMEmail Poster
Top
Grumpa
Posted: Feb 23, 2018 - 03:13 pm


Lunker Trout
*

Group: Members
Posts: 352
Member No.: 4676
Joined: September 12, 2013




Not an exact science for sure....statistical 'sampling' will always have a plus or minus error factor.
But it's a lot more scientifically accurate then some seem to think.
Dozens and dozens of net sets are placed at randomly selected locations, based on a grid system or lake segmentation, at different depths for a specified time period....all over an extended number of days or weeks.
The methodology used is intended to remove or at least greatly minimize the exact type of sampling bias (skewed results) that Northhunter seems to be suggesting.
Results are then compared to prior years results to determine population trends over time.
The netting system employed has been used very successfully for many years all over the province (and North America for that matter)...and has been relied on with complete confidence by fishery biologists and fishery management organizations.
They didn't pull these sampling methods out of thin air. Much time, money, man power, effort and analysis has gone into establishing a reliable system of population monitoring.
The differences noted in the population densities, five years apart on Nosbonsing, could be quite normal and expected given other enivironmental or fisheries significant factors at play (ie successful spawning recruitment over a number of successive years, winter kills due to dissolved oxygen depletion, harvesting pressure etc.)
You only have to look at how fast the population dynamics of several different fish species on L. Nipissing have changed....over a similar, relatively short, five year time frame.
But it's definitely fair to say that there has been and still appears to be a significant population of lake herring (Cisco) present in Nosbonsing.

PM
Top
Northhunter
Posted: Feb 24, 2018 - 05:01 am


Smolt Trout
*

Group: Members
Posts: 104
Member No.: 3521
Joined: February 08, 2013




The plus/minus factor was said to be 18% on Nip, but don't quote me. I didn't hear it directly.

From the looks of it they ran one crew working 5 nets for about a week on Nosbonsing, which would be about standard. Not "dozens and dozens".. they don't have the resources. Especially when a finite number of techs are responsible for sampling very large swaths of lakes and have to follow temperature windows as they go. Five nets on a 1765 hectare lake and it wouldn't take much of an event to throw off the numbers. There's too many variables, weather being the biggest one.

I worked with a crew on a similar "sampling" excursion as to what was performed on Nos in the links above, except we used FWIN (very similar.. both graduated gill nets, random sets, on bottom, set one day and worked the next... just different time of year). We worked 6 or 7 nets for a week.. 4 guys. Our last set we had a cold front move in, pushed a migration of redhorse suckers into the sampling area. They swamped our nets to the point where it caused logistical problems. Our boats weren't big enough to work all the fish in the nets. We hardly saw one all week up to that point.

Grumpa is right, the differences noted in the sample data on Nos 5 years apart could be accurate and quite normal. It would also be quite possible (some would argue quite normal) for the same crew to work the same lake 1 week apart and get the same results. Just the way she goes.

Anyone can look up the sampling protocol online, but this is coming from someone who's been cold, wet, tired and hungry putting said sampling methods to work (on Nip and others) and has seen what takes place. Take it for what it's worth.

PMEmail Poster
Top
Grumpa
Posted: Feb 25, 2018 - 11:44 am


Lunker Trout
*

Group: Members
Posts: 352
Member No.: 4676
Joined: September 12, 2013




Thanks for the personal story Northhunter. Your own experience on the water is a great example. It really hammers home the point and helps validate why the population sampling methodology currently in use in fishery studies actually works as well, and as accurately, as it does.
Case in point, your particular net crew found no suckers in the lake you were testing, throughout much of the sampling week. Only to find an over abundance in one single net set. Those types of individual net results are completely expected in this type of testing.
Clearly there was a population of suckers present in the water body in question. But without an adequate number of additional net sets during the testing period....that particular population of fish would have been under represented, or perhaps even statistically absent, in the final analysis.
That's how statistical sampling works.
While taking into consideration costing, manpower and other testing limitations.....a sufficiently agreed upon number of multiple tests helps determine population estimates as close as possible to reality. Emphasis is placed on the overall combined results from testing periods.
It's the number of test samples (in this case the number of net sets) that assures more accurate, representative results.
The results from one individual net pull isn't what the experts (that analysis the data) focus on, it's the overall averages of all the samples (all the net pulls) that they're interested in. No one expects to see an accurate population representation in just one or even a few net samples....similarly they don't expect a precise accurate average, of each population studied, in every net pull.
Decades of similar testing throughout North America has established protocols and specific testing standards/methods that are adhered to. The testing protocols dictate exactly how many test samples (net sets) need to be taken, given the size of the lake in question. In the case of Nosbonsing 30 plus net sets over a 6 or 7 day time period is likely what the standards call for.
And when year to year results are plotted and examined over 5, 10 or 20 years, an even clearer picture of changing population trends can be gleaned because they further smooth out any unexpected large variations or errors in individual yearly results.
As I mentioned earlier there's a proven method to the madness. You have to trust the science and the people that analyze and interpret the data.
Thanks again for participating in the sampling process, it's the efforts of individuals (like yourself) that helps with the data collection necessary to make fishery management decisions possible.

PM
Top
ldub
Posted: Feb 25, 2018 - 12:02 pm


Trophy Trout
*

Group: Members
Posts: 542
Member No.: 4441
Joined: June 30, 2013




A little off topic, but I have a question about Nipissings limit/slot? From all reports this year, and my own experience both summer and winter, walleye were abundant and easily caught in numbers, yet there is a very restrictive limit and size limit. In contrast I've fished other lakes where walleye are extremely hard to find yet no specific limits or slots for walleye on that particular lake. Logically you would think lakes that you readily catch a certain species would have less restrictions then lakes where you can't find a particular species easily.

PMEmail Poster
Top
Northhunter
Posted: Feb 26, 2018 - 01:05 am


Smolt Trout
*

Group: Members
Posts: 104
Member No.: 3521
Joined: February 08, 2013




The magnitude of the sucker catch would have to be seen to understand. It was a joint operation between the MNR and DFO.. I was in a boat with a large lake Bio. and the senior tech/team lead was a seasoned veteran. They were both from a unit that was responsible for supplying the majority of the data used to produce the "Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish" They don't expect catches like that, and had never seen anything comparable.

A lot of sampling is done for various reasons but is often dual purpose. We netted one lake "just to see". One set.. 2 nets. What they were looking for was confirmed and they pulled the plug. If it didn't show up right away we probably would have continued with additional sets. You learn more in the field than you ever would reading what gets published or released to the public.

QUOTE (ldub @ Feb 25, 2018 - 12:02 pm)
A little off topic, but I have a question about Nipissings limit/slot? From all reports this year, and my own experience both summer and winter, walleye were abundant and easily caught in numbers, yet there is a very restrictive limit and size limit. In contrast I've fished other lakes where walleye are extremely hard to find yet no specific limits or slots for walleye on that particular lake. Logically you would think lakes that you readily catch a certain species would have less restrictions then lakes where you can't find a particular species easily.


They typically don't do regs on a lake by lake basis. They do the "Fisheries Management Zones" instead, which isn't always ideal. Too broad a brush in some instances. Nip is a special case due the pressure it gets.
Some lakes are also just harder to fish. They have been stocking a lake in Alban for years in an effort to boost the walleye fishery. It's still just a harder lake to fish. Nip is some years too.. it had a bad winter 4 or 5 years ago. The fish were there, but the fishing sucked.

PMEmail Poster
Top

Topic Options Pages: 1 2  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 


Fishing Lake Nipissing
Fishing forum for Lake Nipissing & Area. Fishing for walleye/pickerel, muskie, pike, bass, perch, crappie and more. Local Fishing Reports, Current Ice Conditions, Fishing Tips, Tactics, Discussions & More. Northern Ontario Fishing at it's Best!

Marketplace