A short drive and what a surprise

[big walleye]

My wife and I decided to go out for a drive to see if some shacks were stranded on Rivers lake.  Well the following pics tell all.




This one made it to shore

The little Sask running under the dam at Rivers Lake

The spillway at Rivers

Can you see the dam on st street in Brandon?

My shoreline spot last year? River must be up 10-12 ft

Yup that was a skating rink two weeks ago.

And it starts. Some idiots that have so much trouble finding a garbage can.
A nice ride but it was sad to see some decent shacks that in a short time period will be structure for the fish and snags for us.
Hope everyone had a great day!!!

BW

[perch-man]

How are those shacks coming off or are they new structure for Airplane bay ?Why do people do that with their garbage it was not problem to bring it so take home!If people dropped that in their front yard would they like that?NOT.Any way thanks for Photos of Rivers I always enjoy looking at the lake I grew up by.

[big walleye]

PM some people are just plain slobs. The shacks will become structure or will be burnt down. Gatorhunter maybe better to explain what happens when they are left on the ice. I looked at the forcast and they are predicting cold nights this week so hopefully the owners of the shacks will be able to get on safefully to remove them. At this point there is no way for them to get on.

[Thriller]

So, BW...the question is whether you could find that structure in the summer    I really think it is a shame that everyone leaves things until the last minute...I'd love to see Water Stewardship come up with some huge fines for shacks left out.  Perhaps a removal date needs to be moved up...March is typically nice enough to fish outside most of the time anyway.

[big walleye]

Thriller I will just look for the smoke from the woodstove . The bigger unit is located on top of 23 ft of water.

[snopro31]

wouldnt they be able to just drive with a snowmobile out then tie a rope to it, then pull it in with a winch?

[big walleye]

Snopro you cannot get on the lake. The picture does not really show the reality of the situation. There is fifteen feet of open water where I took those pics and the remainder of the lake is very similiar.

[Skiff]

Good set of pictures showing the conditions in your area, looks like the melt is well underway.  As for the shacks - I guess the owners could wait til the shacks floated to shore (if they float) and get them that way, but the stoves, pipes and gear in them are toast, and forming trash on the bottom.  What a mess - and forget about the sofa and chair, nobody would want them even if they make it to shore.  I hope some CO's see your pictures and fine the owners!

[snopro31]

Snopro you cannot get on the lake. The picture does not really show the reality of the situation. There is fifteen feet of open water where I took those pics and the remainder of the lake is very similiar.

o 15 feet isnt to bad just give the sled some gas and youll be good.  or instead of pulling it off just put barrels under the shack and use it during the summer .  always wanted to do that haha

[set the hook]

shouldn't there be a fine for those leaving their shacks on the ice? I think it ought to be a large enough amount that people wouldn't be so stupid!!!!! Plain stupidity that's all, my opinion. sth

[big walleye]

I sadly agree PP. If there is no way to get them off then they must be burned.

[powderburns]

How would a person get to them to burn em??

[gatorhunter]

Lots of points to speak to.  The shacks in question are indeed on the verge of being lost.  They were supposed to have been pulled off by 2400 hours March 31.  There are many factors to be considered before enforcement action of any kind would be taken; including did ice conditions deteriorate quickly, does the ice typically go by March 31 or is it usually well after that date, did the owners make any attempt to remove them before the removal date, are the owners names on the shacks, if an officer does not consider the ice safe enough for them we don't expect the public to enter upon it.

Shacks are someone's private property so we will generally not burn them unless there is absolutely no other alternative.

Viewers of other forums know my professional opinion of permanent ice fishing shacks based on 18 years of experience.  Anecdotal evidence shows that approximately 90% of ice fishing shacks are related to violations of the Manitoba Fishery Regulations, Litter Regulations, Liquor Control Act, Narcotics Control Act and the Criminal Code of Canada.

Why are these structures allowed is beyond my comprehension.  Portable ice fishing shelters are the answer to all of these issues.  While violations still occur with respect to users of portables, the number of violations is miniscule.

Contact your elected provincial official and demand that permanent ice fishing shelters be prohibited.

[powderburns]

I don't believe that banning permanent ice fishing shelters is the answer. Why should irresponable owners of shelters cause the rest of us not to use a shelter. Most of us remove our huts toward the end of the season as ice conditions weaken. We don't have to leave them on the ice until the last minute of the season. When the CO's are making their rounds during the season, and find a hut with no name on it, leave a note if no one is there. After all, isn't it the law to have your name on them.
gatorhunter-You say that 90% of fishing shacks are related to other infractions of the law.-I find that hard to believe.

[scottymac]

"Anecdotal evidence shows that approximately 90% of ice fishing shacks are related to violations of the Manitoba Fishery Regulations, Litter Regulations, Liquor Control Act, Narcotics Control Act and the Criminal Code of Canada. "


I BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN BREACH OF THESE REGULATIONS WOULD BE DOING THEM WETHER THEY GO TO THIER OWN SHACK, OR TO ANOTHER LAKE, AS WELL AS THOSE WHO DON'T HAVE A SHACK, BUT WILL FISH LIKE THAT AS WELL.  tO SAY 90% OF SHACK HAVE FISHERMEN LIKE THAT STATES 90% OF NON SHACK FISHERMEN ARE LIKE THAT AS WELL.  I DON'T THINK SO MYSELF. 

[gatorhunter]

You don't believe because you have not observed these situations from the same perspective as I have.

I deal with the highest number of permanent ice fishing shelters on any one body of water in this Province.  We have officers on the Red virtually every day of the recreational angling year. I've been doing the math for 7 winters now and the Red averages approximately 350 - 400 permanent shacks per year.  My observations have shown that approximately 90% of these shacks are directly related to one or more infractions of the previously related laws and/or regulations.

I have come to personally know the good 10% or 35-40 shack owners and feel for them.  However, there are also portable shack owners of advanced age, limited mobility, etc. who fish regularly and have no difficulty what-so-ever in setting up and tearing down their portables.  One 70 year old plus fellow does it virtually every day.

The highest levels of disgusting littering violations, completely irresponsible social behaviour and criminal activity disguised as angling, is directly related to permanent ice fishing shelters.  When 90% of the client base commits at least 1 violation within a 100 day season, the non-violating 10% loses out.

While most of the violations are committed by the shack owners and/or occupants, MANY are committed by others (vandalism, b+e, theft).  As a side note, Minnesota officers have encountered two mobile crystal meth labs in ice fishing shacks.

Day users with portable shelters don't bring couches, beds, furnaces, cushions, garbage barrels.  They don't freeze in their floors and floor supports like pallets, railway ties, treated lumber, scrap lumber, steel runners.  They don't burn their frozen in shacks made out of scrap lumber, styrofoam insulation, metal siding, plexiglass or glass windows.

Vandalism, theft, b+e don't happen to portable shelters that are removed daily.

The illegal consumption of alcoholic beverages obviously does occur with respect to portable ice shelters but the frequency and level of inebriation is but a fraction compared to users of permanent shelters.

The logistics involved with posting un-named shacks, seizing them, contacting shack owners who did not remove their shacks at or before the removal dates, etc. are completely unrealistic which results in a virtual free for all.

I have countless examples of absolutely defiant behaviour committed by permanent ice fishing shelters.  On more than one occasion, I've stood beside an owner and mentioned that the deadline for removal is tomorrow and having the owner state unequivocally that everything of theirs related to the shack, is coming off tomorrow.  Patrolling the same area the day after the removal deadline and seeing that the entire structure or some part of it was left behind.  I'm not picking up that garbage because it isn't mine..somebody used my shack and left those booze cans and bottles in there.  It never ends regardless of charges being laid.

NUMEROUS corrective possibilities have been discussed over many years.  Permitting, licensing, marking coordinates with GPS, etc, etc, etc.  Eighteen years of experience in many areas of this Province have convinced me that the only way to reduce infractions related to permanent ice fishing shelters to the lowest level possible is to get rid of them.

[perch-man]

So, BW...the question is whether you could find that structure in the summer    I really think it is a shame that everyone leaves things until the last minute...I'd love to see Water Stewardship come up with some huge fines for shacks left out.  Perhaps a removal date needs to be moved up...March is typically nice enough to fish outside most of the time anyway.

I think you hit the nail on the head move up the date!

[big walleye]

Gatorhunter first of all thank-you very very much for posting your pics. Pics say it all. Fellow anglers this guy works in a profession that is so short handed it hurts. Guess what he is correct in his statement. The majority of the shacks I have seen on the ice are leaving something behind when they are taken off. Now I am not going to get in a debate towards this but Gatorhunter is dead on and I support him on this.

[snopro31]

thanks for the pics gator
thats some good wood.  why would anyone leave that?  and beer cans can make a personso why leave them?  one thing i can see leaving the trees there is too mark holes and maybe livewells?

[gatorhunter]

Brandon.  Those trees are placed by permanent ice shack owners who have said that they wanted trees around their shack because, "It looks good." (cabin in the woods mentality), "So that my girlfriend can go pee in privacy." "Cuts the wind." and other colorful reasons understood only by the people who spoke them.

We have asked people to remove these trees to an approved facility as they are considered litter.  All of a sudden it's, I didn't put them there."  "Prove that I'm the one who put them there." "What's the matter?  You guys got something against trees?"  One particular ice shack owner did not remove them to a facility, seemingly choosing to burn them after I specifically told him not to (Dead Christmas trees are still green and won't burn).  But because I couldn't prove that it was him who attempted to burn the trees, there was no enforcement action taken.

We charge everyone that we can catch littering and that means a good year results in about 3 littering tickets.

Quite simply, the largest collection of garbage is invariably connected to permanent ice fishing shacks.  Red River anglers, local property owners and other vested interest parties are sick and tired of picking up anglers' garbage or having disrespectful anglers leave their garbage to sink into the water. 

I appreciate that "honest people" are once again impacted by the abhorrent behaviour of the "dishonest".  But when there is illegal, immoral and socially rejected activity related to approximately 315 shacks out of 350, societal rules dictate that government laws or policies put a stop to this activity.

I really wish that the ice fishing shack community could police itself through cooperation, neighbourly respect, respect for the resource, etc.  But, the broken record is stuck on, "18 years of experience banging my head against the wall trying to figure out how to reduce the problem, never mind solving it, has resulted in my belief that getting rid of permanent shacks is the only answer to reducing the problem to a socially acceptable level."

[snopro31]

ok thanks gator.  always thought they used them for marking but then i guess there girlfriends would rather pee behind trees that are see through rather then a solid shack

[big walleye]

It is very sad to see that some once again will spoil it for others. I have fished with many great friends that I can honestly say are great anglers because they respect what the good lord has given us. These guy's will remove their permanent shacks and leave nothing behind at all. GH I really have issues with people that lie so hat's off to you for being so patient. Trees,pieces of wood , beer cans do not belong in the water. The pics I posed to start this discussion makes you wonder what is in the shacks. Many people do start their fires with oil. Is there oil in the shacks that will end up in the bottom of the lake. How do these people treat the fish they catch. I can go on and on. I hope it does not come to banning permanent shacks but GH is right. That is what it may lead to some and I mean some anglers do not wake up. Great discussion guy's and I welcome more feedback but Iwant to see it be educational and positive towards helping solve this issue. Please do not argue or point fingers at our resource officers. To few and to many lakes to cover. GH has done a great job in educating many and he is an avid angler as well. Let's support him and please if you do disagree then PM him but think before you type. Email or messaging can be dangerous if not thought out properly. Take care everyone and lets keep our lakes and rivers clean.

[jeremyw111]

Wow, I did not realize the high percentage of permanent shack users that broke the law! A part of me wants to completely agree with Gatorhunter as far as completely eliminating permanent shacks, but I keep thinking about those who are not breaking the law.  This is a far out idea, but maybe somebody could refine it.  How about a "property tax" system, which would first of all allow maybe 1 or 2 more people to patrol the permanent shacks.  Property tax #'s for the ice shacks have to be put up together with address on certain part of the shack.  Those who do not display this # pays a huge fine and towing bill for somebody to remove their shack from the ice.  A map can be drawn as to the locations (gps) of all of the shacks, and after they have been removed they are responsible for the area around their shack for litter... Just an Idea

[scottymac]

thanks for the reponce gator.  Its too bad that some have t ruin it fr the good.. "Never fiished the red, so never seen it to that extent there.  We do end up cleaning other peoples mess where ever we go now that i think of it. 

[gatorhunter]

Jeremy, think of how much property taxes would be required to pursue your suggestions.  If a shack is nameless, how would an officer catch the person who owns it?  It could mean countless hours of surveillance waiting for someone to come to the shack.  Even then, how would an officer prove that the shack is that person's? 

To hook up and tow away an unnamed shack, how would the owner be contacted for prosecution or restitution?

How many people come and claim an unnamed shack?  I've got 4 of them in the yard right now.

I also had 6 named shacks and all the owners were contacted.  Only 2 have come.

Simply put, the cost of taxing shacks would have to be astronomical to cover the cost of enforcement.  Plus in Manitoba, all revenue goes directly to general revenue, not a department or program area.  Furthermore, the vast majority of these shacks are either not worth the owner's trouble to come and get, especially when they know that a ticket is waiting for them too.  Other owners prefer to have the officer come to him to lay the charge.

Like I keep saying, this has been thought out through and through from every angle by many people for many years.  To fish with a permanent ice fishing shelter is a privilege, not a right.  The privilege is being abused beyond all comprehension therefore, the privilege must be removed.

[perch-man]

I am FRUSTRATED so I can only imagine Your  situation but if we all do our part it all helps . Any time I go to the valley river boat launch I take a large garbage bag spend 20 mins picking up whAt i can.I know it will be back there next time I go but not as much

[Thriller]

Jeremy, think of how much property taxes would be required to pursue your suggestions.  If a shack is nameless, how would an officer catch the person who owns it?  It could mean countless hours of surveillance waiting for someone to come to the shack.  Even then, how would an officer prove that the shack is that person's? 

To hook up and tow away an unnamed shack, how would the owner be contacted for prosecution or restitution?

How many people come and claim an unnamed shack?  I've got 4 of them in the yard right now.

I also had 6 named shacks and all the owners were contacted.  Only 2 have come.

Simply put, the cost of taxing shacks would have to be astronomical to cover the cost of enforcement.  Plus in Manitoba, all revenue goes directly to general revenue, not a department or program area.  Furthermore, the vast majority of these shacks are either not worth the owner's trouble to come and get, especially when they know that a ticket is waiting for them too.  Other owners prefer to have the officer come to him to lay the charge.

Like I keep saying, this has been thought out through and through from every angle by many people for many years.  To fish with a permanent ice fishing shelter is a privilege, not a right.  The privilege is being abused beyond all comprehension therefore, the privilege must be removed.

Just curious, but what happens if they continue to go unclaimed?  Obviously, if they aren't worth anything, there isn't much point, but if they are half decent, perhaps some monies could be raised (like the bicycle auctions).

I'll go one step further though...something that we often forget...not only is a shelter a privilege, but so is fishing (for the majority of us anyway).  That privilege is regulated and that is why we purchase licenses, just like driving a car.  Far too many people get carried away with the concept of "rights" that don't exist in Canadian law.

[jeremyw111]

Don't get me wrong here...I too agree that shacks...and fishing itself for that matter is a priveledge and not a right.  My Tax idea, I agree, it is a bit silly, but I was brain storming 
As far as banning permanent shacks...is that a realistic possibility?  I'm personally not very aware of how easy it would be to get these types of laws and bylaws passed.  If it means a big petition...send it my way, I'll happily sign it.  I still believe the best solution is education, it may take time, but look at the release of trophy fish.  Even though there are still many big fish kept for the dinner table, a higher and higher percentage are being released every year.  Maybe the same can happen with littering etc.

[snap-on]

This goes out to the gatorhunter, banning permenet shacks come on and give your head shake that will never happen!!!!  And i thought i heard that if you had a bed or some were to sleep in your shack that you didn't have to drive home it was legal to drink in your shack!!!  And what would ice fishing be without a few whiskeys anyways eh boys?

[woodyvt]

Wow what a sad thread.....cant believe that so many anglers really dont care about protecting the places they fish.

I am happy to say that me and the folks I fish with DO take it upon ourselves to police the areas we fish as well as others we have ran into.

Unfortunately there are those who just dont care or they were not brought up to respect things.....including themselves. 

I feel sorry for any children that are learning from the bad apples.

Woody