The PCR Dilemma

[chubbdarter]

I have never fished the Resevoir but read alot of posts.
Are the fish starving?
Are fish cropping their off spring to a zero factor?
With the consumption warnings on the fish...whats the solution?

What the solution?

[WayneChristie]

bored too eh? :sHa_sarcasticlol: I dont think in any case the government would allow keepers in PCR, since they have a consumption warning for the mercury, would it not open up liability issues? Then again, you can keep pike and burbs there, and Twin Valley and they have a mercury warning as well.

[chubbdarter]

bored too eh? :sHa_sarcasticlol: I dont think in any case the government would allow keepers in PCR, since they have a consumption warning for the mercury, would it not open up liability issues? Then again, you can keep pike and burbs there, and Twin Valley and they have a mercury warning as well.

If walleyes were netted and transferred to another body of water would their mercury content lessen?

[BeeGuy]

The bioassay results are available online.

Burbot have higher Hg levels than the walleye. However, there is a wide range of Hg reported for all of the assayed species, and I suspect this is due to an insufficient sample size.

All of the fish in PCR are within the range of commercially available store bought fish.

The fish are 8 years old, and average 15-17". They are lean and muscular little torpedoes.

PCR seems fine the way it is. IMO

[WayneChristie]

I really have no idea, but that would be a good solution if it did, actually why dont they net a couple million of them and ship them up to Wab, its already full of tainted fish anyways :bad_boys_20:

[chubbdarter]

The bioassay results are available online.

Burbot have higher Hg levels than the walleye. However, there is a wide range of Hg reported for all of the assayed species, and I suspect this is due to an insufficient sample size.

All of the fish in PCR are within the range of commercially available store bought fish.

The fish are 8 years old, and average 15-17". They are lean and muscular little torpedoes.

PCR seems fine the way it is. IMO

So there is recruitment?

[happyfisher]

i didnt know there was a warning for merc......booooooo but if u want to catch fish guaranteed.....its the place to go.....

happy:bad_boys_20:

[Daceminnow]

bored too eh? :sHa_sarcasticlol: I dont think in any case the government would allow keepers in PCR, since they have a consumption warning for the mercury, would it not open up liability issues? Then again, you can keep pike and burbs there, and Twin Valley and they have a mercury warning as well.


lots of bodies of water in the province open to keeping your catch with merc warnings. liabilities, i don't think so wayne.

this is in the alberta regs.

http://www.albertaregulations.ca/fishingregs/fish-consumption-advisory.pdf


you want answers and solutions chub? try explaining to the kids catching as many fish as you want all day long, most days you venture out. year to year the same deal. help me answer some of these questions."daddy why are they all the same size? why aren't they growing from year to year? if there's so many, why can't we keep a couple? they're must be starving, we're catching them on everything."

Dace

[chubbdarter]

So if opened to harvest would you guys fish and chip some?

[chubbdarter]

lots of bodies of water in the province open to keeping your catch with merc warnings. liabilities, i don't think so wayne.

this is in the alberta regs.

http://www.albertaregulations.ca/fishingregs/fish-consumption-advisory.pdf


you want answers and solutions chub? try explaining to the kids catching as many fish as you want all day long, most days you venture out. year to year the same deal. help me answer some of these questions."daddy why are they all the same size? why aren't they growing from year to year? if there's so many, why can't we keep a couple? they're must be starving, we're catching them on everything."

Dace

Dace..... so just 1 year class?

[wildman]

Thisll be calling lake in a year or two as well

[slivers86]

I say keep it as it is. Its a great place for families to go, within distance of both lethbridge, calgary, okotoks, highriver and surrounding areas. You can camp overnight, catch plenty of fish from shore (for those who cannot afford a boat). I've seen plenty of happy faces when children catch fish there non-stop.

Keep it C&R, and leave it as the lone place other than a couple of ponds where a 3 yr old kid can sit on the dock, and be guaranteed he'll catch his first fish, like most of us, under a bobber with grandpa at his side :)

[happyfisher]

so if i go this sunday....just bring long rods?:fighting0030:

[slivers86]

so if i go this sunday....just bring long rods?:fighting0030:

Happy, if you go this sunday, and by chance its frozen enough to drop something through the ice, bring the stinkiest bait you can find, smelts work well for eyes, but I think herring steaks might nail the burbot there. Cat food works there, worms, powerbait, you name it.

Just beware of the hamburgler :scared0015:

[chubbdarter]

Thisll be calling lake in a year or two as well

Wild.....explain furthur please

[chubbdarter]

I say keep it as it is. Its a great place for families to go, within distance of both lethbridge, calgary, okotoks, highriver and surrounding areas. You can camp overnight, catch plenty of fish from shore (for those who cannot afford a boat). I've seen plenty of happy faces when children catch fish there non-stop.

Keep it C&R, and leave it as the lone place other than a couple of ponds where a 3 yr old kid can sit on the dock, and be guaranteed he'll catch his first fish, like most of us, under a bobber with grandpa at his side :)

Sliver...without recruitment is the lake not on a one way road to........?
A self cropping population is doom

[happyfisher]

i take smelts.....put them out for 2 nights.....they stink and burbot come on in....!!!!!

[happyfisher]

do u think i can ice fish it by dec 3rd?

:bad_boys_20:

[slivers86]

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/fourteenday/caab0225?ref=qlink_st_14day

looks promising, perhaps by the 3rd

[happyfisher]

silver thanks....but u think that looks promising? actually i built a shack and putting it on mcgragor that weekend...if there is ice.........i got private land to access it....boo-ya!!!!

every year lots of hammerhandels.....walleye....decent pike .....but im gunna sleep in it so im hopin for burb to......i bought a little me heater.....its still too cold i guess i need a bigger heater......its a small shack only 40" by 100"......

lol

[BeeGuy]

Sliver...without recruitment is the lake not on a one way road to........?
A self cropping population is doom

There appears to be only a single age class of walleye in the lake.

Apparently walleye can live nearly 30 years. If this is the case, we may have another 20 years to enjoy the fishery as it is.

The walleye population may be on a one way road, however there is more in the lake than just walleye.

They count too.

As it is, the walleye are lean, but very muscular, and I wouldn't say they are starving. As the population declines due to fishing pressure and predation, we may see some larger fish and recruitment.

For the next decade or so I don't really see any dilemma, of course that is, unless the only purpose of stocking walleye is to develop a trophy fishery.

But, who would want to try and target trophy walleye with a hundred jet boats screaming around? And if the fishery was managed for that, then it wouldn't be the family friendly fishery it is now.

[chubbdarter]

Im not sure asking fisherman for real life data will work.............unless Bio's want smelt secrets

[npauls]

Chub I think they are starving.

That is the only place I have ever been where I have caught eyes on anything I have dropped down.

The fish seem to be staying the same size or barely growing and I am not seeing any sort of new year classes.

I haven't fished the lake for a year or more and rarely head there but I think something needs to be done to get it to the self sustaining fishery that it should be.

I don't know if they could introduce some sort of bait fish to try and get the fish to grow more. I would think a stocking of white fish, shiners, or chubbs may work but who knows how many they would have to dump in there to keep a population in there long enough to spawn and also have a self sustaining bait fish population.

[chubbdarter]

If you believe a fish isnt getting its full nutritional requirements...can it live for the 30 years as posted above?

[Daceminnow]

Dace..... so just 1 year class?


in the two seasons i've fished it, i've seen nothing to lead me to believe anything otherwise. same, same.

[npauls]

If you believe a fish isnt getting its full nutritional requirements...can it live for the 30 years as posted above?

Nope. I think that lake will go down hill fast if something doesn't change in the next few years.

[Commander B]

Chub i would say there are three year classes. 10" to 14", 15" to 17" majority, and the odd 18" ,19" or maybe they are more productive feeders. wondering if this corrisponds to previous stockings as natural recruitment is questionable?. Clearly this will never be a trophy lake,i think the major food source is shrimp. the pike on the other hand have excelent potential.

wierd that the burbs are all relitivly similar in size aswell.


B.

[BeeGuy]

Well, it has been shown in many studies that smaller size and weight significantly increases longevity.

So, yes.

As I suggested above, although the fish do not have an excess of food, they are healthy and not starving IMO.

I believe their willingness to take almost any presentation is a response to very high competition due to the sheer magnitude of the fish population.

I have not seen any fish which have starved to death. The fish fight like crazy and are extremely vigorous.

[chubbdarter]

Chub i would say there are three year classes. 10" to 14", 15" to 17" majority, and the odd 18" ,19" or maybe they are more productive feeders. wondering if this corrisponds to previous stockings as natural recruitment is questionable?. Clearly this will never be a trophy lake,i think the major food source is shrimp. the pike on the other hand have excelent potential.

wierd that the burbs are all relitivly similar in size aswell.


B.

The 19" to 10" could possibly be recruitment depending on growth rates.

Have you seen much skin abnormalities?

[BeeGuy]

We pulled well over 500 fish from PCR this summer and every fish was between 13" and 17". Probably 80%+ were 14.5-16.5"

[Commander B]

i do agree that the majority are as Bee says but have seen some smaller and larger than the average. all fish are very clean as also previously posted.

B.

[Commander B]

i suport moving some to another lake as the catch rate per angler hour is outrageous, 30 to 40 fish an hour from a boat. Eagle, chestermere, badger are lakes that could support eyes and would welcome the boost in my op.

B.

[Kim473]

bored too eh? :sHa_sarcasticlol: I dont think in any case the government would allow keepers in PCR, since they have a consumption warning for the mercury, would it not open up liability issues? Then again, you can keep pike and burbs there, and Twin Valley and they have a mercury warning as well.

How many water bodies in Alberta don't have a mercury warning, 10% maybe. They sure must have done a lot of gold panning in the 1800s around here. LOL

[Darren57]

Every burb we pulled out of there last winter had a belly full of shrimp. I dont think they are starving. Mabey they are just so happy to get something other than shrimp on the menu that they will try anything LOL.

[slivers86]

Mabey they are just so happy to get something other than shrimp on the menu that they will try anything LOL.


Could be very true. Those burbs are pigs.

[freeones]

I say keep it as it is. Its a great place for families to go, within distance of both lethbridge, calgary, okotoks, highriver and surrounding areas. You can camp overnight, catch plenty of fish from shore (for those who cannot afford a boat). I've seen plenty of happy faces when children catch fish there non-stop.

Keep it C&R, and leave it as the lone place other than a couple of ponds where a 3 yr old kid can sit on the dock, and be guaranteed he'll catch his first fish, like most of us, under a bobber with grandpa at his side :)

X2. There is no "Dilemma".

I hope people just leave well enough alone when it comes to PCR. There's no other place like it to take kids and new fisherman and introduce them to walleye fishing. The joy and passion for fishing I've seen in people, including my own kids, after a day on PCR is priceless. People get hooked on fishing by catching fish, not by spending all day on the shore or in a boat hoping to catch one or two big ones. (That comes later lol.) There are plenty of other lakes to go to if you're after trophy fish.

It's an amazing fishery, and unless it shows real signs of collapse, it should be left as is. In my opinion, it's plenty healthy, I've seen very few signs of disease or mutations (no more than any other lake I've fished a lot) after catching hundreds and hundreds of fish, and I'd say that 95%+ of them put up a good fight for their size and look very healthy. I think they'll hit just about anything, not because they're starving, but simply because competetion in the lake is fierce and you're dangling an easy meal in front of them.

Are all the fish nearly identical in size? Yeah. Is their recruitment? I don't know. I have seen some smaller fish (10-12") and I have seen some slightly bigger ones (18-20"), but they are few and far between. There are some big pike in there, and the odd hammerhandle too, so I would say the pike are self sustaining.

Regardless, I think PCR is a gem, and I would oppose any regulation changes to the lake in an attempt to "improve" it. Lots of people, myself included, have paid good money to fly into northern SK or AB to experience EXACTLY the kind of walleye fishing that PCR offers. No one is dreaming up reasons or ways to tinker with the regs on those lakes.

[jrs]

There is recruitment, strong initial age classes and low growth rates though. If the government would have went through with a few more of the initial reccomendations (forage base of perch or whitefish) the lake likely would have performed better. It would be tough to add additional forage now, the only thing i think should be done is reduce the burbot limit, drastically (said this years ago in central alberta at a limit of 3, many burbot populations classified as collapsed now, problem in Pine Coulee, they don't really want them in there anyways).
As for walleye age class, i can't remember the exact configuration but its basically intended water levels allow spawning every couple years to maintain the population, spawning conditions are not optimal every year. It is a reservoir first.

[BobLoblaw]

Chub i would say there are three year classes. 10" to 14", 15" to 17" majority, and the odd 18" ,19" or maybe they are more productive feeders. wondering if this corrisponds to previous stockings as natural recruitment is questionable?. Clearly this will never be a trophy lake,i think the major food source is shrimp. the pike on the other hand have excelent potential.

wierd that the burbs are all relitivly similar in size aswell.


B.

The burbs are not ALL small. I say a 9.5 pound burb on the ice a couple years ago...

[Darren57]

Every burb i hav seen or seen a pic of has been about 1-2 pounds in the last 3 years. Someone i met there once said there have been 20 pounders in earlier years. Could very easily have been a fish story though.

[Dan Foss]

There is the odd large burb in there. But most seem to be around the same size. And I am not sure if I would call the burb population in there collapsed. From my observations, there are just as many burbs in there as walleye. Icefishing there last year almost caught 1 burb for every 1.5 walleye.

As for starvation, It is hard to say. The walleye in there are stunted and there appears to be primarily one year class with maybe a a bit of variation (there are a few every trip that are noticeably bigger/smaller than average). However, as beeguy stated, I wouldn't necessarily call them skinny. They are a healthy color and for there size, seem to be a healthy rate. That said, they will take anything infront of their face which suggests competition is high.

[0liver]

stock the place with whites. end of storey.

[BeeGuy]

stock the place with whites. end of storey.

If scuds are the primary feed in the lake, wouldn't this increase the competition even more?

[iliketrout]

If a lake full of stunted perch is a problem, how is a lake full of stunted walleye not a problem?

Don't get me wrong, the fact that anyone can go there and catch 100+ eyes in a day is great, especially for young kids starting out. But in my mind, a healthy and sustainable fishery is one with clear signs of recruitment of all species of fish, natural reproduction and predation, successful spawning every year, differing age classes of all fish, and a good food source.

The fact that the competition for food is so high is a sign to me that there is not enough natural food sources. But I'm no biologist.

I'm sure some will disagree with my definition of a healthy fishery, so my question is: Is PCR a healthy, sustainable fishery? Put aside your thoughts on if it's a good place for kids to go, and how much fun it is to get triple digits in one day. And I'm not asking if we should do anything. Just wondering if people think this is a healthy and sustainable fishery.

[aulrich]

The walleye would only be stunted if they were actually spawning and the last info I have seen was that they are not. Now the lack of a large prey base will keep the size down (see spray lake lake trout) but that is not stunted, theat is just the imit of the system.

It would be nice to see a some prey introduced but that will not happen. I was surprised there were no rockies in there when they made it, the pike and burbs were locals I would have thought that rockies would have been there too.

[Dan Foss]

healthy and sustainable? no. I have seen no signs of new year classes. I am just unsure if it is a food issue. or a space issue. or what. the actual condition of the fish seem to be rather healthy. but the fishery as a whole. definitely not. which is too bad because it is a nice lake to fish.

[Dan Foss]

The walleye would only be stunted if they were actually spawning and the last info I have seen was that they are not. Now the lack of a large prey base will keep the size down (see spray lake lake trout) but that is not stunted, theat is just the imit of the system.

It would be nice to see a some prey introduced but that will not happen. I was surprised there were no rockies in there when they made it, the pike and burbs were locals I would have thought that rockies would have been there too.

Spray Is an interesting topic and I do not mean to derail from the PCR portion. But I believe it someone still falls under a similar category. So you believe that spray is at its carrying capacity due to the lack of predators?

[iliketrout]

Spray Is an interesting topic and I do not mean to derail from the PCR portion. But I believe it someone still falls under a similar category. So you believe that spray is at its carrying capacity due to the lack of predators?

Not to derail further but below is taken from the following link (and is admittedly outdated) http://sunsite.ualberta.ca/Projects/Alberta-Lakes/view/?region=South%20Saskatchewan%20Region&basin=Bow%20River%20Basin&lake=Spray%20Lakes%20Reservoir&number=115&page=Biological

"The lack of appropriate prey for lake trout in the reservoir has led them to survive almost exclusively on plankton and midge larvae. Only 2% of 51 fish caught in 1986 had fish in their stomachs. The scarcity of fish in the diet of lake trout is likely one reason why the lake trout in Spray Lakes Reservoir die younger and are smaller at all ages than lake trout in lakes with abundant forage fish such as Lake Minnewanka (Stelfox 1988)."

My guess is that the few lake trout that do attain a healthy size (remember the 17lb'er posted on here a while back) eventually get to a size where they can prey on juvenile whitefish and then are able to grow faster once they reach that point. Until then all we can do is feed them smelt and occassionaly hook one or two as well! (BTW of the ~8 or so lakers I kept from Spray last year, every single one had a smelt in it, and they all looked like superstore smelt).

Back to PCR, my guess is that something similar is happening there.

[aulrich]

If they spawn I would not be surprised if it ended up like spray but who knows.

The lake as it is is a special place, even if they have to restock every few years it's sustainable enough.

[Dan Foss]

Yes I have read that before, Good post Iliketrout. I just reread that article again for a refresher. It is outdated but still very much applicable. Does anyone remember what year they drained spray? I thought it was late 80s but I cannot recall. I know it is not listed on that sight.

How you explained it was perfect. They feed on small bugs and plankton and only a few out of every year class make the jump to be able to feed on the juvenile whites and cuts. This is a lake I feel would benefit majorly from a stocking of forage fish. They tried to introduce cisco in there one year and it failed. Any idea what would be able to survive in that lake to transition this gap?

[WalleyeDeitz]

I say keep it as it is. Its a great place for families to go, within distance of both lethbridge, calgary, okotoks, highriver and surrounding areas. You can camp overnight, catch plenty of fish from shore (for those who cannot afford a boat). I've seen plenty of happy faces when children catch fish there non-stop.

Keep it C&R, and leave it as the lone place other than a couple of ponds where a 3 yr old kid can sit on the dock, and be guaranteed he'll catch his first fish, like most of us, under a bobber with grandpa at his side :)



This is well put and I agree 100%. It’s the one place I regularly take kids (and adults) in the boat that are new to fishing and know, and I mean know with 100% certainty, that we will have an amazing time fishing and the kids will be hooked for life. My 3 year old daughter caught about 20 in an hour amongst playing with everything else in the boat, all on her own, with the exception of unhooking them. My brothers 2 kids who are new to fishing together caught well over 100 fish in the same hour and spent the whole ride home gleaming about what a great day it was and now keep asking when I can take them fishing again. I must admit, sometimes I wonder if the fish are starving but I got to say, I absolutely love having this lake out the back door.

[npauls]

Yes I have read that before, Good post Iliketrout. I just reread that article again for a refresher. It is outdated but still very much applicable. Does anyone remember what year they drained spray? I thought it was late 80s but I cannot recall. I know it is not listed on that sight.

How you explained it was perfect. They feed on small bugs and plankton and only a few out of every year class make the jump to be able to feed on the juvenile whites and cuts. This is a lake I feel would benefit majorly from a stocking of forage fish. They tried to introduce cisco in there one year and it failed. Any idea what would be able to survive in that lake to transition this gap?

I think shiners or chubs would may be a good option. They won't take over like a perch would and seem to be in quite a few of the still waters around southern Alberta.

[Dan Foss]

I think shiners or chubs would may be a good option. They won't take over like a perch would and seem to be in quite a few of the still waters around southern Alberta.

survive the cold temps?

[npauls]

survive the cold temps?

I can't see why not. They survive every winter in the other waters.

Whitefish may be another possible option. Just stock a ton of small ones so they have some eating size right off the bat and hope that enough survive to grow big enough to spawn and keep a self sustaining population in there. Those are about the only 3 species I could see even being an option. Maybe small rainbows or cutties would be another option.

[Dan Foss]

I can't see why not. They survive every winter in the other waters.

Whitefish may be another possible option. Just stock a ton of small ones so they have some eating size right off the bat and hope that enough survive to grow big enough to spawn and keep a self sustaining population in there. Those are about the only 3 species I could see even being an option. Maybe small rainbows or cutties would be another option.

there are already thousands of whites in there so that would be useless. Ill grab my bucket and steel some chubbs from lake sundance........ :scared0018:



anyways, back to PCR...........

PCR also has a large population of suckers in it as well, correct?

[npauls]

there are already thousands of whites in there so that would be useless. Ill grab my bucket and steel some chubbs from lake sundance........ :scared0018:



anyways, back to PCR...........

PCR also has a large population of suckers in it as well, correct?

I am not to sure about a large population of suckers. If it did you think the walleyes and burbot would have a better growth rate. There is also suppose to be some trout in pcr but I guess its not enough to make a difference for the predators to grow faster.

[BeeGuy]

If the walleye and burbot are already feeding on inverts because there is essentially no piscine prey available, I do not see how introducing baitfish will increase the amount of forage available for the predators.

If whites are introduced they would be eating 10kg of inverts to make 1kg of whitefish biomass.

This would essentially remove 9kg of potential forage for the walleye.

The only way the whitefish would make up for this loss is by being many factors more efficient than the walleye at feeding on the inverts. Thereby increasing the overall forage base by utilizing invert prey which would have been 'wasted' by the inefficiencies of walleye predation.

What may end up happening is, a large proportion of the invert prey is converted into whitefish which in turn puts a huge stress on the walleye and only the walleye which adapt to feeding on whitefish survive.

This scenario could very well lead to starvation in the huge walleye population.

Anyways, overtime we will see a decrease in the walleye population due to fishing mortality (not insignificant), pike, bird, and wakeboarder predation etc.

This will lead to small increases in overall size.

Who knows, maybe the odd individual will break the threshold and start feeding preferentially on other walleye as some of the pike have.

Several people have commented on the lack of recruitment.

I wonder if there are any appropriate spawning areas in this reservoir?

[horsetrader]

Have not fished this area myself, but there seems to be a large volume of anglers at do fish it. The only problem there seems to be just as many opinions about the fishery as there is anglers. I would love to see a real bio like TyreeUm chime in and see if he could straighten out some of the confusion.

[WayneChristie]

Maybe we can stock bass, then the walleye can eat them until they get big enough. :bad_boys_20:

[BeeGuy]

Have not fished this area myself, but there seems to be a large volume of anglers at do fish it. The only problem there seems to be just as many opinions about the fishery as there is anglers. I would love to see a real bio like TyreeUm chime in and see if he could straighten out some of the confusion.

what's it take to be a real bio? a PhD?

[Daceminnow]

I say keep it as it is. Its a great place for families to go, within distance of both lethbridge, calgary, okotoks, highriver and surrounding areas. You can camp overnight, catch plenty of fish from shore (for those who cannot afford a boat). I've seen plenty of happy faces when children catch fish there non-stop.

Keep it C&R, and leave it as the lone place other than a couple of ponds where a 3 yr old kid can sit on the dock, and be guaranteed he'll catch his first fish, like most of us, under a bobber with grandpa at his side :)

X2. There is no "Dilemma".

I hope people just leave well enough alone when it comes to PCR. There's no other place like it to take kids and new fisherman and introduce them to walleye fishing. The joy and passion for fishing I've seen in people, including my own kids, after a day on PCR is priceless. People get hooked on fishing by catching fish, not by spending all day on the shore or in a boat hoping to catch one or two big ones. (That comes later lol.) There are plenty of other lakes to go to if you're after trophy fish.

It's an amazing fishery, and unless it shows real signs of collapse, it should be left as is. In my opinion, it's plenty healthy, I've seen very few signs of disease or mutations (no more than any other lake I've fished a lot) after catching hundreds and hundreds of fish, and I'd say that 95%+ of them put up a good fight for their size and look very healthy. I think they'll hit just about anything, not because they're starving, but simply because competetion in the lake is fierce and you're dangling an easy meal in front of them.

Are all the fish nearly identical in size? Yeah. Is their recruitment? I don't know. I have seen some smaller fish (10-12") and I have seen some slightly bigger ones (18-20"), but they are few and far between. There are some big pike in there, and the odd hammerhandle too, so I would say the pike are self sustaining.

Regardless, I think PCR is a gem, and I would oppose any regulation changes to the lake in an attempt to "improve" it. Lots of people, myself included, have paid good money to fly into northern SK or AB to experience EXACTLY the kind of walleye fishing that PCR offers. No one is dreaming up reasons or ways to tinker with the regs on those lakes.

This is well put and I agree 100%. It’s the one place I regularly take kids (and adults) in the boat that are new to fishing and know, and I mean know with 100% certainty, that we will have an amazing time fishing and the kids will be hooked for life. My 3 year old daughter caught about 20 in an hour amongst playing with everything else in the boat, all on her own, with the exception of unhooking them. My brothers 2 kids who are new to fishing together caught well over 100 fish in the same hour and spent the whole ride home gleaming about what a great day it was and now keep asking when I can take them fishing again. I must admit, sometimes I wonder if the fish are starving but I got to say, I absolutely love having this lake out the back door.


it's all well and good boys no doubt. but for how long? i too enjoy an afternoon there with the family both on the ice and in the summer. i think there should be some concern though as to how long a good thing can go on for if there's no changes observed with the fishery. i lived up north and have experienced the recent downfall of both pigeon and calling lake. i'm not suggesting there's the same issues with PCR or even a problem. but, i don't believe we can be ignorant to the fact that the good thing of today with a continued zero harvest and no significant age classes being observed will last forever. i just can't see how. again i'm no bio dude, just a fisherman who has observed a few things over the years. i think this is what the OP is inquiring about. i'm sure although he says he's never fished the waters i'm sure his children or possibly his grandchildren have, and them along with the three of you and myself all would like to enjoy the PCR of today for years to come. the question is, when might it be too late to preserve what we enjoy today?

Dace

[horsetrader]

what's it take to be a real bio? a PhD?

No i don't think he would necessarily need a phd to be a real bio.
But then on the other hand not all people with phd's in biology would I call
real bio's. It takes more than a degree to be a bio as some have shown.

[chubbdarter]

TyreeUM is a well travelled Bio and a great fisherman, thats a rare combo in the Bio world from what ive known.
Ty also doesnt speak down to the less trained......simply a smart nice guy.

[chubbdarter]

okay now that a few have responded....
If your a concerned person that there is a issue would you?
1- write a email to your Bio?
2- join a club to voice your concern?
3- do nothing?

also i this was a angler mail in survey, how would a Bio interperate the posts in this thread?

[npauls]

If I knew that the email would be taken seriously and actually looked into I would write one to the bio about the possible problems.

I would also join a club if it was local to my area. I don't think I would want to join a club that I could never make the meetings or events.

[BeeGuy]

okay now that a few have responded....
If your a concerned person that there is a issue would you?
1- write a email to your Bio?
2- join a club to voice your concern?
3- do nothing?

also i this was a angler mail in survey, how would a Bio interperate the posts in this thread?

I'm not sure a biologist would find much of use in this thread other than perhaps some notable conjecture.

On the other hand, a resource manager could identify that:
i) stake holders value the resource
ii) there is concern among stakeholders that the fishery is not sustainable
iii) there is a need for a management plan

[horsetrader]

I'm not sure a biologist would find much of use in this thread other than perhaps some notable conjecture.

On the other hand, a resource manager could identify that:
i) stake holders value the resource
ii) there is concern among stakeholders that the fishery is not sustainable
iii) there is a need for a management plan

So your saying if a Bio received this information that he could not identify that there could be a problem and if not able to look in to it himself he could not direct it to someone that could. You don't seem to have much faith in biologist then.

[dodger]

I only go to PC once a year and have seen no changes in the Walleye size from day one. It is a bit confusing as they seem healthy but nothing more. The Pike are a different story in this lake. I have caught and seen some of the biggest Pike in there compared to my favorite Southern reservoirs where just the oppisite is happening.

7 years ago 100 Walleye at 16" every couple of hours, today - the same?? No answers from me but this is just not normal so the future of the lake is 16" Walleye and Pike that will become large monsters.

My $0.02 worth. Dodger.

[Crusty]

Maybe the plan is to make a monster more than trophy pike lake!!:thinking-006::bad_boys_20::fighting0074:

[BeeGuy]

So your saying if a Bio received this information that he could not identify that there could be a problem and if not able to look in to it himself he could not direct it to someone that could. You don't seem to have much faith in biologist then.

Quite the opposite.

I think the state of PCR is well known in general, and would be no mystery to any biologist, fisheries or otherwise.

Beyond the fact that there appears to be a single age class of walleye, I'm not sure any new information has been presented here.

The info that has been presented which might not have been already widely known is identified in my second (ii) point above.



An additional suggestion I'll make here is that while both the pike and the burbot are growing, walleye growth has stalled, perhaps this is due to a diet made up almost exclusively of invertebrates.

With an invert diet and a huge population they may not be able to get much larger and have reached a healthy equilibrium.

A similar relate-able scenario may be small creek trout which are mature at 8" and reach a maximum size of 12". This species, under these environmental conditions has reached its maximum, for the time being.

If walleye were more effective at feeding on inverts, I bet they would continue to grow.

[horsetrader]

Quite the opposite.

I think the state of PCR is well known in general, and would be no mystery to any biologist, fisheries or otherwise.

Beyond the fact that there appears to be a single age class of walleye, I'm not sure any new information has been presented here.


If you say that the state of PCR is well known in general then why in your first post did you state in your opinion the fishery was fine.




The info that has been presented which might not have been already widely known is identified in my second (ii) point above.

ii) there is concern among stakeholders that the fishery is not sustainable
How you figure any info that was not previously known is covered by this statement is beyond me.



An additional suggestion I'll make here is that while both the pike and the burbot are growing, walleye growth has stalled, perhaps this is due to a diet made up almost exclusively of invertebrates.

This suggestion was brought up by other people earlier in the thread and is not a new suggestion



With an invert diet and a huge population they may not be able to get much larger and have reached a healthy equilibrium.

A similar relate-able scenario may be small creek trout which are mature at 8" and reach a maximum size of 12". This species, under these environmental conditions has reached its maximum, for the time being.

If walleye were more effective at feeding on inverts, I bet they would continue to grow.


??????????????

[jrs]

For the one comment above, walleye spawning habitat was incorporated into the design, there's lots of it. I think you guys may be imagining a bit more of a recruitment problem than really exists. You could always email the area bio if you want to know what kind of monitoring has occurred, spawning has been confirmed more than once.

[BeeGuy]

For the one comment above, walleye spawning habitat was incorporated into the design, there's lots of it. I think you guys may be imagining a bit more of a recruitment problem than really exists. You could always email the area bio if you want to know what kind of monitoring has occurred, spawning has been confirmed more than once.

Good to know!

We were there yesterday and the walleye we landed were all smaller than the smallest we saw all summer, much lighter colours too.

[ogre]

I've been following this thread for a couple of days now. So is this conclusive that the walleyes are reproducing in PCR?

[WayneChristie]

Must be something new, the F and W officer I talked to last year down there said they had never seen any sign of reproduction in the walleyes. There were 2 size classes because it was stocked twice is what he told me.

[chubbdarter]

I guess i really dont think like a Bio, if they dont find fishermans input valuble. To even imply a lake has no mysteries means that.... that person knows it all. To be blunt.... that book smart attitude is the worst.
As ive stated before the very best Bio's we can have are Book and Lake smart. Highly educated and Good fisherman. That combo is rare with TyreeUM being the only exception i know.
Whats the solution?
Highly educated Bio's work with Good fisherman, especially those intimate with the water being studied.

[horsetrader]

I guess i really dont think like a Bio, if they dont find fishermans input valuble. To even imply a lake has no mysteries means that.... that person knows it all. To be blunt.... that book smart attitude is the worst.
As ive stated before the very best Bio's we can have are Book and Lake smart. Highly educated and Good fisherman. That combo is rare with TyreeUM being the only exception i know.
Whats the solution?
Highly educated Bio's work with Good fisherman, especially those intimate with the water being studied.

You are so right there. With out a working knowledge of the lake and some experience in actually fishing the fishery all the book smarts in the world will only get you the basics. Nothing will replace experience.

[chubbdarter]

You are so right there. With out a working knowledge of the lake and some experience in actually fishing the fishery all the book smarts in the world will only get you the basics. Nothing will replace experience.

I believe this is even more true with every lake being different in make up.

[freeones]

it's all well and good boys no doubt. but for how long? i too enjoy an afternoon there with the family both on the ice and in the summer. i think there should be some concern though as to how long a good thing can go on for if there's no changes observed with the fishery. i lived up north and have experienced the recent downfall of both pigeon and calling lake. i'm not suggesting there's the same issues with PCR or even a problem. but, i don't believe we can be ignorant to the fact that the good thing of today with a continued zero harvest and no significant age classes being observed will last forever. i just can't see how. again i'm no bio dude, just a fisherman who has observed a few things over the years. i think this is what the OP is inquiring about. i'm sure although he says he's never fished the waters i'm sure his children or possibly his grandchildren have, and them along with the three of you and myself all would like to enjoy the PCR of today for years to come. the question is, when might it be too late to preserve what we enjoy today?

Dace

How long has it been like this now? Any sign of things getting bad?

When did fishermen become like a group of old women? Sit around all day in front of our computers worrying and looking for problems where none exist, or where we don't even fish? Busy bodies, do-gooders and know-it-alls.

Could PCR collapse one day? For sure, but what can be done about it today? Not much would be my guess. Should anything be done? Not unless there's a damn good reason for doing it. I don't want to bury my head in the sand either, but all this talk of stocking different prey species, limited harvest, etc... is just pointless speculation from people that really don't know what the consequences of those things would be. Why would you mess with a fishery like that because it MIGHT improve it, or it MIGHT prevent it from MAYBE collapsing one day? By all accounts I've heard on this thread, other than concerns about the average size of the walleye population, it's pretty healthy. I haven't heard any concern from SRD about the situation either.

If the population isn't maintainable as some have suggested, and there is no recruitment, and the walleye have reached their maximum size based on available forage, then what's wrong with that? There's likely not much to be done about it at this point that will overcome all the previous years of failed recruitment and the lack of forage. It is what it is. It may not last forever, but that's OK, we know the formula to restore it. What's wrong with having a lake that is essentially a put/take walleye fishery? A really good one.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[chubbdarter]

How long has it been like this now? Any sign of things getting bad?

When did fishermen become like a group of old women? Sit around all day in front of our computers worrying and looking for problems where none exist, or where we don't even fish? Busy bodies, do-gooders and know-it-alls.

I started this thread because of the purposal by SRD to have more angler input. I intentionally picked a body of water i do not or have never fished so, to simulate what a Bio/SRD person may also be confronted with. My purpose was to see what questions should be on the survey to gain the most important data. It appears name calling should be part of SRD's survey. Im positve and have confirmed with other agencies in North America that angler surveys do provide important data.

Could PCR collapse one day? For sure, but what can be done about it today? Not much would be my guess. Should anything be done? Not unless there's a damn good reason for doing it. I don't want to bury my head in the sand either, but all this talk of stocking different prey species, limited harvest, etc... is just pointless speculation from people that really don't know what the consequences of those things would be. Why would you mess with a fishery like that because it MIGHT improve it, or it MIGHT prevent it from MAYBE collapsing one day? By all accounts I've heard on this thread, other than concerns about the average size of the walleye population, it's pretty healthy. I haven't heard any concern from SRD about the situation either.

You are now participating in the survey and have every right to comment the way you feel

If the population isn't maintainable as some have suggested, and there is no recruitment, and the walleye have reached their maximum size based on available forage, then what's wrong with that? There's likely not much to be done about it at this point that will overcome all the previous years of failed recruitment and the lack of forage. It is what it is. It may not last forever, but that's OK, we know the formula to restore it. What's wrong with having a lake that is essentially a put/take walleye fishery? A really good one.

That very well could be the input SRD is looking for. With all respect to your post, I beleive there is situations where the present recreational benifits may out wieght any long term technical fishery management. So in many ways i agree with you. If the surveys come in that anglers want the lake to be left alone with no furthur management, I believe that option should be respected in whole or in part.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
.................................................. .................................................. ......

[BeeGuy]

If you are soliciting input for the purpose of a survey, you should state that in the first post of the thread, not the 3rd page.

What is now happening here is bordering on manipulation, and nobody likes to be manipulated.

[Freedom55]

...that all the lakes, or what passes for lakes, in Alberta are managed by an arm of the provincial government. SRD or what-have-you, at the behest of an elected MLA and his troupe of bureaucratic bunglers and job-for-lifers, employs an assortment of highly trained scientists and technologists. These people go about their business counting fish and examining the health of the water and the aquatic life. And, in spite of the needs of the other downstream users (irrigation and livestock watering), they are "pedaling as fast as they can" in terms of maintaining an adequate fishery. N'est pas?

But isn't the role of government to meet the needs of every citizen in the largest numbers? And the greatest number of anglers in the province are, likely, the family guys on a limited budget and a bunch of inexpensive gear hoping to have a little fun with the kiddies. Not a hand full of tournament "pros" and purists that know every pool and riffle on the eastern slopes. Plus a big assortment of long-timers in between.

When in the history of man is there documented evidence that, even if such a mind could separate the wheat from the chaff, such educated persons would be susceptible to the musings of the great unwashed? Do you really feel that public input is important to these people, remembering what I have already stated about bureaucrats and their minions?

I for one am not convinced that anything I have to say in terms of how an Albertan wishes to live and fish beyond, of course, "Sure I'll vote for you!" or "Keep up the good work" to a government official is going to fall on anything but deaf ears. Even if I fished PCR exclusively and had plotted every hump and sand bar and knew a bunch of walleye by name. Which of course I don't. Never been to the place. But that shouldn't matter. Lots of fellas comment on s**t they know nothing about. Sadly, the same could be said for a lot of places where I have charted the bottom, so that's my 2 cents.

I do, however, admire the determination of some of you fellas, in particular Chubbdarter, in holding their feet to the fire. Keep at it, I am sure the rewards will justify the effort.

Free

[chubbdarter]

If you are soliciting input for the purpose of a survey, you should state that in the first post of the thread, not the 3rd page.

What is now happening here is bordering on manipulation, and nobody likes to be manipulated.

Why does that change how you answered simple questions on how you feel about a lake?
Simple questions and members have answered to the best of their knowledge. If you choose to add drama and CSI to this thread, thats also your choice.

I have never fished the Resevoir but read alot of posts.
Are the fish starving?
Are fish cropping their off spring to a zero factor?
With the consumption warnings on the fish...whats the solution?

What the solution?

Its pretty clear you post like your smarter than everyone but doesnt the above ask questions and ask for solutions?
Or is a survey only a survey if its a Poll?

P.S......i know the members here are smart enough to know what this thread was, is and will be

[BeeGuy]

I do, however, admire the determination of some of you fellas, in particular Chubbdarter, in holding their feet to the fire. Keep at it, I am sure the rewards will justify the effort.

Free

x2!

[BeeGuy]

Why does that change how you answered simple questions on how you feel about a lake?
Simple questions and members have answered to the best of their knowledge. If you choose to add drama and CSI to this thread, thats also your choice.



Its pretty clear you post like your smarter than everyone but doesnt the above ask questions and ask for solutions?
Or is a survey only a survey if its a Poll?

P.S......i know the members here are smart enough to know what this thread was, is and will be


The point is, is that when you were criticized, your response was essentially to "reveal" the underlying purpose of the thread.

This isn't a poker game, so if you show us your cards from the beginning, we can all be on the same page and work to a constructive conclusion.

So, now maybe you can clarify for us:

Are we participating in a survey? or are we discussing the PCR dilemma?

[chubbdarter]

The point is, is that when you were criticized, your response was essentially to "reveal" the underlying purpose of the thread.

This isn't a poker game, so if you show us your cards from the beginning, we can all be on the same page and work to a constructive conclusion.

So, now maybe you can clarify for us:

Are we participating in a survey? or are we discussing the PCR dilemma?

If a person asks a question or questions and people answer of their free will is it not a survey?
To make you happy next time i ask for comments on whats the best hook to fish with...I will type in bold letters, this is a SURVEY.
Im sure the members have answered with all honesty and wont change their answers if i had annouced.....THIS IS A SURVEY

[freeones]

Survey or no survey, makes no difference to me, I prefer to deal with things straight up rather than PC gov't style, but either way, the point I was trying to make stands. Sometimes it's best to just leave well enough alone.

There may be some value in angler surveys. They would be so completely subjective and affected by so many factors and biases that I don't see what the real value of them would be beyond very basic big picture ideas. I'd also be concerned that any data gathered would be so inconcise that it would be very open to any and all kinds interpretation. That could be me just missing the point though. I'm not sure that having a few thousand cooks in the kitchen, some of them with no pots or spoons, is the right way to make good soup. There are times when it's better to leave things to those that are trained to make the decisions. If someone showed me a proper scientific report that said drastic changes have to be made to PCR or it will collapse in 2 years, then obviously I'd support the changes, but I don't see that. I see a lot of speculation, and a lot of individual opinions based on what they want or think should be done, myself included.

I don't doubt that Chubdarter and others are asking the questions with only the best intentions, but we all know what road those pave, especially when the government gets involved.

[Daceminnow]

How long has it been like this now? Any sign of things getting bad?

When did fishermen become like a group of old women? Sit around all day in front of our computers worrying and looking for problems where none exist, or where we don't even fish? Busy bodies, do-gooders and know-it-alls.

Could PCR collapse one day? For sure, but what can be done about it today? Not much would be my guess. Should anything be done? Not unless there's a damn good reason for doing it. I don't want to bury my head in the sand either, but all this talk of stocking different prey species, limited harvest, etc... is just pointless speculation from people that really don't know what the consequences of those things would be. Why would you mess with a fishery like that because it MIGHT improve it, or it MIGHT prevent it from MAYBE collapsing one day? By all accounts I've heard on this thread, other than concerns about the average size of the walleye population, it's pretty healthy. I haven't heard any concern from SRD about the situation either.

If the population isn't maintainable as some have suggested, and there is no recruitment, and the walleye have reached their maximum size based on available forage, then what's wrong with that? There's likely not much to be done about it at this point that will overcome all the previous years of failed recruitment and the lack of forage. It is what it is. It may not last forever, but that's OK, we know the formula to restore it. What's wrong with having a lake that is essentially a put/take walleye fishery? A really good one.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Free,

i’m unsure if you calling me out here. i can only assume so as you’ve quoted my post. if that’s the case, i’m even more unsure why? i’m by no means an “old woman” . i have far better things to do than be an internet warrior “looking for problems where none exist.” a “busy bodies, do-gooder and know-it-all”, Sir i am not. as stated in the post you quoted of mine i’m not a Bio (expert), just a fisherman who has made some observations and Sir i do fish, search a thread or two of mine. if i offended you in some way, you read into my post something deeper than i intended. you state “If it ain't broke, don't fix it.” i guess that’s where we differ. do you change the oil in your truck? how about weed your garden, or keep a good coat of stain on your fence and deck? then again maybe i like chasing white elephants and unicorns. Free i respected your posts, always have. we’re all intitled to our opinions, it’s an open forum.

Dace

[wildman]

hey CHUBDARTER,
sorry for the way, way late reply, JUST read your comment.
my inclusion of calling lake was not due to any mercury issues but the skinny, starving fish.
each year they get thinner and thinner with the young pike looking like true snakes.
last trip there last year we talked to the fish cops and they said the perch pop'n there has been basically extinct for a few years now and thus the game fish have no forage base.
worried for the state of that lake.
sad to see. used to be a trophy fishery...
sorry for the thread hijack....pcr needs help too...

[freeones]

Free,

i’m unsure if you calling me out here. i can only assume so as you’ve quoted my post. if that’s the case, i’m even more unsure why? i’m by no means an “old woman” . i have far better things to do than be an internet warrior “looking for problems where none exist.” a “busy bodies, do-gooder and know-it-all”, Sir i am not. as stated in the post you quoted of mine i’m not a Bio (expert), just a fisherman who has made some observations and Sir i do fish, search a thread or two of mine. if i offended you in some way, you read into my post something deeper than i intended. you state “If it ain't broke, don't fix it.” i guess that’s where we differ. do you change the oil in your truck? how about weed your garden, or keep a good coat of stain on your fence and deck? then again maybe i like chasing white elephants and unicorns. Free i respected your posts, always have. we’re all intitled to our opinions, it’s an open forum.

Dace

I quoted you because you quoted me, but it doesn't go beyond that. Likewise, I respect your posts and the info you've provided.

My post wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, just at what seems to be an all to common attitude around here. I get frustrated at the amount stuff I see that is exactly what I was describing - too many "experts" trying to solve problems that aren't in need of solving. Every now and then something good comes from it, but for the most part, it just creates a fire from imaginary smoke.

The maintenance thing is a great analogy. I change the oil, when it needs it, not at 100 kms in a good running engine. I weed the garden when it needs it, and I stain my fence when it's obvious the old coat is worn out, not a week after I stained it the last time just in case it might wear out five years from now. I also prefer to do it in a proper proven way. I don't like to introduce a bunch of insects into the garden because my cousin's neighbor's father in law who once googled insects said they might eat the weeds or take out half the fence boards so that hopefully the rest last longer and I won't have to stain as many. That's the difference I see as this whole thing relates to PCR. There's no problem with maintenance, I'm all for it, but not just for the sake of it, I do it when its needed. Like I said, if someone can show me the scientific data to show there's truly a dilemma in PCR, then I'll get on board with finding the solution.

[horsetrader]

I quoted you because you quoted me, but it doesn't go beyond that. Likewise, I respect your posts and the info you've provided.

My post wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, just at what seems to be an all to common attitude around here. I get frustrated at the amount stuff I see that is exactly what I was describing - too many "experts" trying to solve problems that aren't in need of solving. Every now and then something good comes from it, but for the most part, it just creates a fire from imaginary smoke.

The maintenance thing is a great analogy. I change the oil, when it needs it, not at 100 kms in a good running engine. I weed the garden when it needs it, and I stain my fence when it's obvious the old coat is worn out, not a week after I stained it the last time just in case it might wear out five years from now. I also prefer to do it in a proper proven way. I don't like to introduce a bunch of insects into the garden because my cousin's neighbor's father in law who once googled insects said they might eat the weeds or take out half the fence boards so that hopefully the rest last longer and I won't have to stain as many. That's the difference I see as this whole thing relates to PCR. There's no problem with maintenance, I'm all for it, but not just for the sake of it, I do it when its needed. Like I said, if someone can show me the scientific data to show there's truly a dilemma in PCR, then I'll get on board with finding the solution.


Do you need someone to tell you when your oil needs changing your garden needs weeding or your fence needs staining? Why do you have to wait for scientific data to show you when a water system needs help I just hope by the time that happens there is still time. Just turning it in to another put and take lake is not the proper way to manage a fishery.

[npauls]

Do you need someone to tell you when your oil needs changing your garden needs weeding or your fence needs staining? Why do you have to wait for scientific data to show you when a water system needs help I just hope by the time that happens there is still time. Just turning it in to another put and take lake is not the proper way to manage a fishery.

Especially when fisheries have mentioned in the past that they want all the southern reservoirs with walleye in them to be self sustaining.

[freeones]

Do you need someone to tell you when your oil needs changing your garden needs weeding or your fence needs staining? Why do you have to wait for scientific data to show you when a water system needs help I just hope by the time that happens there is still time. Just turning it in to another put and take lake is not the proper way to manage a fishery.

That's exactly the point isn't it. I DON'T need people like you telling me when to change my oil, weed the garden, or stain my fence.

I prefer to do things based on sound reason and science, not based on what some self proclaimed internet experts suggest.

Why not? Who decided that? There are lots of them in this province that provide a great deal of enjoyment for people. Why must there only be one "right" way to manage a fishery? Who's to say the current management system isn't working?

[chubbdarter]

From SRD
2.3 million Walleye fry were stocked in Pine Coulee Reservoir in the spring of 2000, with another 1.8 million stocked in the spring of 2002. Stocking of cyprinids and suckers collected from Willow Creek was also done in 2000 to try to establish a forage base for Walleye. Since then we have sampled the reservoir to monitor the Walleye population as it develops. In 2003, 2004, 2007, and 2009 gill netting was conducted to sample for larger Walleye in open, deeper areas of the reservoir. In 2005 and 2006 test angling was conducted to further sample larger Walleye for mercury analysis. In 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008, and 2009 beach seine netting in shallow areas of the reservoir was conducted to sample for juvenile Walleye (young of the year).



Gill net results

In 2003 over 60 Walleye were caught with an average fork length of about 10-11 inches. These were from the 2000 stocking event.

In 2004 close to 100 Walleye were caught with an average fork length of about 11-12 inches.

In 2007 about 50 Walleye were caught with an average fork length of about 13 inches.


In 2009 almost 130 Walleye were caught with an average fork length just over 13 inches. Stomach contents were analysed and ages determined. Only a single Walleye was less than 12 inches fork length. Its fork length was about 9.5 inches and it was aged 2 years old. This fish is believed to have resulted from natural spawning (not a stocked fish). All the other Walleye were between 12 and 15 inches long and either age 6 or age 9. They came from either the 2000 or 2003 stocking events. Stomach content analysis showed that of all the Walleye caught in 2009, only one contained partially digested fish, while all others either had empty stomachs or only invertebrates in their stomachs, mostly amphipods (Gammarus).



Test angling results

In 2005 35 Walleye caught in the spring had an average fork length of 12 inches.

In 2006 31 Walleye caught in the spring had an average fork length of 13 inches.



Beach seining results

In 2003 no young of the year Walleye were captured.

In 2004 no young of the year Walleye were captured.

In 2007 5 young of the year Walleye were captured at a single site.

Walleye spawning was also confirmed in 2007 though the use of egg traps set over spawning habitat, mid-April though mid-May.

In 2008 5 young of the year Walleye were captured at two sites.

In 2009 7 young of the year Walleye were captured at four sites.

All young of the year Walleye were around 1.5 inches long.



Ten years after completion of the Pine Coulee Project, the overall conclusion from these results is that a dense population of Walleye from the 2000 and 2003 stocking events has developed, but the growth rate of these fish has gradually decreased to the point that they have almost stopped growing now. Although spawning is occurring, there appears to be very limited survival of naturally spawned young (only one fish caught in gill nets in 2009 was a two year old). Stomach content analyses demonstrate Walleye are not feeding on fish, but primarily on amphipods (invertebrates). This is likely limiting their growth. All fish but the one age 2 fish sampled in 2009 did appear to have mature gonads, suggesting they could spawn, but the limited prey base may mean not all Walleye have sufficient energy to actually spawn. Another possibility is that despite successful spawning, very few young of the year survive the first summer due to poor conditions for survival (cold weather, wind and wave action, poor rearing habitat) or larval predation by other forage species present in the reservoir. Beach seine netting in shallow areas of the reservoir has shown White Suckers and Longnose Suckers are abundant, but the Walleye are not feeding on them. Other species of forage fish such as Lake Chub, Spottail Shiners, Emerald Shiners, and Fathead Minnow are also present, but in lower numbers.



Walleye fisheries across Alberta are classified into one of four management categories. In southern Alberta, all waterbodies were classified into one of two categories: newly stocked or vulnerable. Reservoirs and lakes in the first category have a zero catch limit (catch and release) while those in the vulnerable category allow for limited harvest. According to Alberta's Walleye Management and Recovery Plan, changes to the management status category (e.g., from newly stocked to vulnerable) are based on five biological characteristics: age-class distribution, age-class stability, growth, age-at-maturity, and catch rate. Although catch rate meets the criteria for changing the status category of Pine Coulee Reservoir,growth rate, age-at-maturity, age-class distribution, and age-class stability do not. Walleye in Pine Coulee Reservoir have reached maturity rapidly, the age-class distribution is extremely narrow (essentially only fish from the 2000 and 2003 stocking events are represented), and age-class stability is very low (if these two age classes were lost to overharvest there would be no younger age classes to fill their place). In order to change Pine Coulee Reservoir from the newly stocked to vulnerable category we need to have biological evidence that juvenile Walleye are surviving, reaching sexual maturity, and spawning successfully.



We will continue to monitor the reservoir and evaluate the feasibility of various options for establishing a sustainable fishery. A risk assessment considering the impacts to the reservoir itself, as well as to Willow Creek, would be required before considering introducing another prey species for Walleye. In terms of allowing limited harvest, a decision will have to be reach on whether a self sustaining Walleye fish can be established before this is considered. One factor to note is that a consumption advisory is in place for Walleye from this reservoir. Although concentrations of total mercury in analysed walley from Pine Coulee Reservoir (0.52 to 0.79 micrograms/gram) were within reported ranges for Walleye from rivers and lakes elsewhere in Canada and the United States, they were also above the threshold (0.5 micrograms/gram) where Health Canada recommends limits for consumption for different consumer groups (women, children, adults).



If you have any further questions about fisheries management on Pine Coulee Reservoir, please feel free to contact me again.

[horsetrader]

From SRD
2.3 million Walleye fry were stocked in Pine Coulee Reservoir in the spring of 2000, with another 1.8 million stocked in the spring of 2002. Stocking of cyprinids and suckers collected from Willow Creek was also done in 2000 to try to establish a forage base for Walleye. Since then we have sampled the reservoir to monitor the Walleye population as it develops. In 2003, 2004, 2007, and 2009 gill netting was conducted to sample for larger Walleye in open, deeper areas of the reservoir. In 2005 and 2006 test angling was conducted to further sample larger Walleye for mercury analysis. In 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008, and 2009 beach seine netting in shallow areas of the reservoir was conducted to sample for juvenile Walleye (young of the year).



Gill net results

In 2003 over 60 Walleye were caught with an average fork length of about 10-11 inches. These were from the 2000 stocking event.

In 2004 close to 100 Walleye were caught with an average fork length of about 11-12 inches.

In 2007 about 50 Walleye were caught with an average fork length of about 13 inches.


In 2009 almost 130 Walleye were caught with an average fork length just over 13 inches. Stomach contents were analysed and ages determined. Only a single Walleye was less than 12 inches fork length. Its fork length was about 9.5 inches and it was aged 2 years old. This fish is believed to have resulted from natural spawning (not a stocked fish). All the other Walleye were between 12 and 15 inches long and either age 6 or age 9. They came from either the 2000 or 2003 stocking events. Stomach content analysis showed that of all the Walleye caught in 2009, only one contained partially digested fish, while all others either had empty stomachs or only invertebrates in their stomachs, mostly amphipods (Gammarus).



Test angling results

In 2005 35 Walleye caught in the spring had an average fork length of 12 inches.

In 2006 31 Walleye caught in the spring had an average fork length of 13 inches.



Beach seining results

In 2003 no young of the year Walleye were captured.

In 2004 no young of the year Walleye were captured.

In 2007 5 young of the year Walleye were captured at a single site.

Walleye spawning was also confirmed in 2007 though the use of egg traps set over spawning habitat, mid-April though mid-May.

In 2008 5 young of the year Walleye were captured at two sites.

In 2009 7 young of the year Walleye were captured at four sites.

All young of the year Walleye were around 1.5 inches long.



Ten years after completion of the Pine Coulee Project, the overall conclusion from these results is that a dense population of Walleye from the 2000 and 2003 stocking events has developed, but the growth rate of these fish has gradually decreased to the point that they have almost stopped growing now. Although spawning is occurring, there appears to be very limited survival of naturally spawned young (only one fish caught in gill nets in 2009 was a two year old). Stomach content analyses demonstrate Walleye are not feeding on fish, but primarily on amphipods (invertebrates). This is likely limiting their growth. All fish but the one age 2 fish sampled in 2009 did appear to have mature gonads, suggesting they could spawn, but the limited prey base may mean not all Walleye have sufficient energy to actually spawn. Another possibility is that despite successful spawning, very few young of the year survive the first summer due to poor conditions for survival (cold weather, wind and wave action, poor rearing habitat) or larval predation by other forage species present in the reservoir. Beach seine netting in shallow areas of the reservoir has shown White Suckers and Longnose Suckers are abundant, but the Walleye are not feeding on them. Other species of forage fish such as Lake Chub, Spottail Shiners, Emerald Shiners, and Fathead Minnow are also present, but in lower numbers.



Walleye fisheries across Alberta are classified into one of four management categories. In southern Alberta, all waterbodies were classified into one of two categories: newly stocked or vulnerable. Reservoirs and lakes in the first category have a zero catch limit (catch and release) while those in the vulnerable category allow for limited harvest. According to Alberta's Walleye Management and Recovery Plan, changes to the management status category (e.g., from newly stocked to vulnerable) are based on five biological characteristics: age-class distribution, age-class stability, growth, age-at-maturity, and catch rate. Although catch rate meets the criteria for changing the status category of Pine Coulee Reservoir,growth rate, age-at-maturity, age-class distribution, and age-class stability do not. Walleye in Pine Coulee Reservoir have reached maturity rapidly, the age-class distribution is extremely narrow (essentially only fish from the 2000 and 2003 stocking events are represented), and age-class stability is very low (if these two age classes were lost to overharvest there would be no younger age classes to fill their place). In order to change Pine Coulee Reservoir from the newly stocked to vulnerable category we need to have biological evidence that juvenile Walleye are surviving, reaching sexual maturity, and spawning successfully.



We will continue to monitor the reservoir and evaluate the feasibility of various options for establishing a sustainable fishery. A risk assessment considering the impacts to the reservoir itself, as well as to Willow Creek, would be required before considering introducing another prey species for Walleye. In terms of allowing limited harvest, a decision will have to be reach on whether a self sustaining Walleye fish can be established before this is considered. One factor to note is that a consumption advisory is in place for Walleye from this reservoir. Although concentrations of total mercury in analysed walley from Pine Coulee Reservoir (0.52 to 0.79 micrograms/gram) were within reported ranges for Walleye from rivers and lakes elsewhere in Canada and the United States, they were also above the threshold (0.5 micrograms/gram) where Health Canada recommends limits for consumption for different consumer groups (women, children, adults).





If you have any further questions about fisheries management on Pine Coulee Reservoir, please feel free to contact me again.


Definitely some interesting info. huge numbers of stocked fish with very little growth and so sustainable spawning. This is a fishery that is going to need continuing help or it can easily lost. No wheres near the health fishery some would lead you to believe. Thanks for the information Chubb.

[jrs]

Im thinking that amount of reproduction could be more sustainable than you may think. Walleye fry seining is not generally used quantitatively, rather, its used to confirm reproduction. To see what i mean, find out how many fry were seined the same years it was stocked with millions, it may surprise you how few show up in sampling.
They did find 3 consequetive years of spawning, thats better than a lot of our walleye populations in reservoirs ever get. When i fished PCR last winter, we used very small jigs and caught a fair number of perch size (6-8'') walleye, they are in there. Survival of the new gernerations could be limited though, consider all the burbot, pike, suckers, and other walleye they have to contend with. Growth rates suck, part of that is the reservoir was definetly stocked earlier than would have been optimal (not many years for forage base to develop). As the lake gets older it should improve, more weeds and forage can take a long time. More weeds alone would greatly benefit walleye fry by providing cover and a far greater biomass of prey (scuds etc).
The smallest of the walleye we caught last winter (some as small as 4-5'') were plump little guys, the bigger ones were skinny, i think this supports the idea theres a feeding "problem". Big sucker population, i wonder if a 0 limit or slot on pike would be worth trying. Big pike may help to thin out the suckers a bit, less competition on a biomass level.

[aulrich]

Good to hear at least some spawning happening, I would think the real critical years will be those last few before the initial stock die of old age. And maybe at that point more age classes start showing up and the size improves.

I did a little googling and it seems 10-20 years is the widest span so i'd imagine we have 5 ish years or so before we see the numbers really start to drop. My "hope" is during that time recrutment will also rise and the lake settles into a grove.

The fishing will not get any better than it is now, at least numbers wise, so enjoy it while it lasts.

[WayneChristie]

JRS, there are a lot more pike and much bigger pike in PCR than people think, Ive had the pleasure of making the aquaintance of one, for a short time anyways, 4 pound test isnt really the best for very large fish. I think with all the food for them (walleye) that in the next few years we are going to see some crazy heavy fish coming out of there. Like record size, if not heavier.
Thank you for the very informative post Mr Darter!

[calgarygringo]

I have fished many days there winter and summer. There is definitely a starvation problem with the wallys but no issues with the pike. There are many monsters in there. I have caught many in the 10-15 lb range and seen a few at the dock like some of the southern lakes. they are in there and have always been well fed looking fish. I did talk to the CO there a year or so ago and suggested some new fish such as perch, whites or just a minnow type population. He did say perch is out due to issues we are having in a lot of places and said whites the same. Said whites don't have a good survival rate on a stocking and a natural production over years works better. He was not sure about adding some kind of minnow type food as an alternative. This will turn into a pike trophy lake one of these days. There will be huge ones coming out regularly at the rate they are growing. the CO also said that the pike they had checked in there are growing at almost twice the rate of most reservoirs. I don't know where the number came from but they were doing netting there at the time as well.

[iliketrout]

Chubb thanks for the info. Good to have hard data to support what many anglers are reporting.

Does SRD have any sort of plan if/when the population crashes?

[Daceminnow]

thanks very much chubb for sharing with us your communication with the SRD.

it is definitely good to see it has been determined that successful spawning has occurred. with poor rearing habitat mentioned as one of the factors contributing to the juvenile walleye surviving, reaching sexual maturity, and spawning successfully, i wonder if there's any plans to improve the habitat. i know stream improvements in the province have been done to improve spawning and rearing grounds. is it possible for these same types of habitat improvements to be made in lakes and reservoirs as well? or is it just that PCR is a relatively new reservoir and it will take some time to develop new and better habitat for the young to utilize and survive? we stay out of it, and let the ecosystem look after itself and our fish. i also found it interesting to note they mentioned the consumption advisory. i don't quite understand how that aspect fits in with all the excellent information and data that was shared.

Dace

[pelada trochu]

thanks for everyones comments on pcr. havent fished there before so dont know much about it but thought i might throw my 2 bits out there too.

a lake system can only support a fixed level of biomass and thats it. usually and naturally that biomass is balanced across something called a food chain.

i strongly strongly suggest that it might be a bad idea to ever adjust a water bodies biomass by stocking a single species(unless your trying o repair previous damage). otherwise you only introduce a shock to the system which has to kick it out of balance. One really big link in the chain.

the fish are in a slow stavation cycle. you may disagree but the fact they kill everything you drop in might just be a hint about the feeding pressure.

the population will eventually crash and die off from age or disease. good for the pike right now but that is just a little longer cycle which will crash eventually too.

now could it be fixed. sure just start adjusting the biomass
possibly some commercial netting of walleye. then addition of some walleye, pke and feeder minnows in a set balance.


but i wonder if anyone wants a balanced system. or maybe with the fishing pressures we have today, can we even have a balanced system.

thats my thoughts.. thanks for reading.

[horsetrader]

Im thinking that amount of reproduction could be more sustainable than you may think. Walleye fry seining is not generally used quantitatively, rather, its used to confirm reproduction. To see what i mean, find out how many fry were seined the same years it was stocked with millions, it may surprise you how few show up in sampling.
They did find 3 consequetive years of spawning, thats better than a lot of our walleye populations in reservoirs ever get. When i fished PCR last winter, we used very small jigs and caught a fair number of perch size (6-8'') walleye, they are in there. Survival of the new gernerations could be limited though, consider all the burbot, pike, suckers, and other walleye they have to contend with. Growth rates suck, part of that is the reservoir was definetly stocked earlier than would have been optimal (not many years for forage base to develop). As the lake gets older it should improve, more weeds and forage can take a long time. More weeds alone would greatly benefit walleye fry by providing cover and a far greater biomass of prey (scuds etc).
The smallest of the walleye we caught last winter (some as small as 4-5'') were plump little guys, the bigger ones were skinny, i think this supports the idea theres a feeding "problem". Big sucker population, i wonder if a 0 limit or slot on pike would be worth trying. Big pike may help to thin out the suckers a bit, less competition on a biomass level.

There seems to be quite a size problem there seems to be very little size increase between 2007 and 2009 with 130 walleye caught in 2009 and only 1 being under the 12" mark and that being the only naturally spawned fish. It will be interesting to see over the next few years just what happens. I can see the younger fish can survive and grow on just invertebrates but as they mature they need more food source or they will become a very stunted fishery. I don't know if a harvest of walleye would really change things that much it will give possibly more invertebrates per fish but will that be enough to increase fish size. Or is introducing another food source the way to go.

[AK47]

Why not stock perch in there? Perch would be perfect as it will be a great food for both walleye and burbot and pike.

[npauls]

Why not stock perch in there? Perch would be perfect as it will be a great food for both walleye and burbot and pike.

The problem with the perch would be that they could escape and spread through other water systems connected to pcr and take over like they have in many other places.

I think whitefish, shiners, or chubbs would be a good addition if they were to stock a bait fish.

[AK47]

The problem with the perch would be that they could escape and spread through other water systems connected to pcr and take over like they have in many other places.

I think whitefish, shiners, or chubbs would be a good addition if they were to stock a bait fish.

what is connected to PCR? Is there such a huge risk?

[npauls]

If I remember right I think it drains back out into a small creek system which feeds some other smaller waters.

I will have to look it up to make sure and get back to you on what it is connected to.

I know that Alberta fisheries is really iffy about perch right now due to so many small waters filled with stunted perch.

[Dan Foss]

Very Very interesting information and thank you to chubbs for providing it and all your hard work on the several projects you have going on right now.

A few things caught my attention.....

I know a bunch of you are still discussing if stocking prey species is a viable option to raise size.... However, from books that I have read and if some of our actual bios on the board would like to chime in to clairify that would be awesome, it seems to me that what I have read follows a similar line to what pelada trochu was referring to when he brought up that a lake can only support a fixed level of biomass and the entire ecosystem including forage can be messed when you add large quantities of fish like has occurred at PCR. However, I dont believe removing biomas and trying to force a balance by introducing pike and forage would be an answer. Now that it has been confirmed that there has been spawning on whatever limited basis, the first thing that I believe would need to be studied is the spawning success rates and a estimation of percentage of fry that survive. Then It would need to be determined what the biggest threats are to the young fry. This is where we could possibly best help out the fishery. In this stage we could determine if it is that there the environment proposes the greatest challenges to young fry, then we can look into improving breeding grounds, improving sections of the lake to provide cover for young fry which in tern may also provide additional cover for forage fish and increase those populations.

It could be that midsize pike are feeding on the young walleye as there are no fish populations the right size for the size pike(obviously the large pike will feed on walleye, burbs, suckers, ect. but what of the pike that are not quite big enough for that size meal...... they certainly are not going to jump size classes by feeding on shrimp and such like the walleye do)

My point is that with the confirmation of successful spawning, the next step should be to learn why we are not seeing higher rates of these age classes. I definitely donot dispute that this lake shouldn't be considered for a reduction in walleye biomass as I believe it is clear that food competition is definitely a primary issue which may also be effecting development of young fry, but before anything is done I believe that there should be questions investigated regarding spawning success, fry survival, reasons why there are such low survival rates, and why there is currently such small populations of forage fish.

I also agree that it takes a long time for a lake to establish beds for large populations of forage. But this may also be an area that couple be assisted with.

once again very interesting information and great contribution guys

[horsetrader]

Very Very interesting information and thank you to chubbs for providing it and all your hard work on the several projects you have going on right now.

A few things caught my attention.....

I know a bunch of you are still discussing if stocking prey species is a viable option to raise size.... However, from books that I have read and if some of our actual bios on the board would like to chime in to clairify that would be awesome, it seems to me that what I have read follows a similar line to what pelada trochu was referring to when he brought up that a lake can only support a fixed level of biomass and the entire ecosystem including forage can be messed when you add large quantities of fish like has occurred at PCR. However, I dont believe removing biomas and trying to force a balance by introducing pike and forage would be an answer. Now that it has been confirmed that there has been spawning on whatever limited basis, the first thing that I believe would need to be studied is the spawning success rates and a estimation of percentage of fry that survive. Then It would need to be determined what the biggest threats are to the young fry. This is where we could possibly best help out the fishery. In this stage we could determine if it is that there the environment proposes the greatest challenges to young fry, then we can look into improving breeding grounds, improving sections of the lake to provide cover for young fry which in tern may also provide additional cover for forage fish and increase those populations.

It could be that midsize pike are feeding on the young walleye as there are no fish populations the right size for the size pike(obviously the large pike will feed on walleye, burbs, suckers, ect. but what of the pike that are not quite big enough for that size meal...... they certainly are not going to jump size classes by feeding on shrimp and such like the walleye do)

My point is that with the confirmation of successful spawning, the next step should be to learn why we are not seeing higher rates of these age classes. I definitely donot dispute that this lake shouldn't be considered for a reduction in walleye biomass as I believe it is clear that food competition is definitely a primary issue which may also be effecting development of young fry, but before anything is done I believe that there should be questions investigated regarding spawning success, fry survival, reasons why there are such low survival rates, and why there is currently such small populations of forage fish.

I also agree that it takes a long time for a lake to establish beds for large populations of forage. But this may also be an area that couple be assisted with.

once again very interesting information and great contribution guys

You bring up some good points but I still think the main problem to be concerned with is an acceptable food source for the mature walleye. What is the sense in developing the spawning just to have another water system full of stunted fish.

[Dan Foss]

You bring up some good points but I still think the main problem to be concerned with is an acceptable food source for the mature walleye. What is the sense in developing the spawning just to have another water system full of stunted fish.

Yes I meant to mention that as well. It appears that forage is an issue and i meant to make the connection that whatever issues there are with the young fry walleye may be the same reason why the forage populations are so low as well. For example if it is a protection issue where they are not seeing enough areas in the lake where they can hide from the mid size pike, is it excessive competition for food to the point where forage populations would be larger if the general biomass was smaller....(more forage fish per walleye and higher forage populations if there were less mouths to feed)

it appears that the issue with PCR is not one solitary issue bur perhaps a combination of various issues: a) spawning success rates b) coverage for forage as well as fry b) too large of a bio mass of a single walleye class.

A couple other possibilities for some of these issues that have popped in my head while thinking about the issue off the forum: is it possible that one reason why low success rates or spawn is due to the burbot population feeding on fry and walleye eggs? Is it possible that the forage populations would be at a healthy, self sustaining level if there were fewwer walleye of the same year class? It is clear that there is alot of small food sources as it has been proven that this is primarily what the walleye eat; given that, forage fish should have plenty of food to support a large population. Is it possible that with such high populations of walleye that they are just whipping out the forage fish preventing them from establishing the population capabilities that they should be able to achieve given the food source?


I just had a little realization....... I almost like fish and fishing way to much. These discussions are 1000x more interesting than anything on TV. I feel sorry for some of my friends that have to listen to me talk about this stuff for hours and probably just sit there thinking im crazy:1041:

[WayneChristie]

I just had a little realization....... I almost like fish and fishing way to much. These discussions are 1000x more interesting than anything on TV. I feel sorry for some of my friends that have to listen to me talk about this stuff for hours and probably just sit there thinking im crazy:1041:

Too much? nah, not possible :sHa_shakeshout:
more interesting than tv? so is picking belly button lint for the most part!
and if you are crazy for that, join the club, :sHa_sarcasticlol: Im a proud member myself :126fs2277341:

[slough shark]

fairly simple solution in my mind anyways, reduce walleye biomass by allowing a limit of a couple walleye to be taken, this followed by a mass introduction of feeder fish, I'm thinking some minnow type (shiners perhaps) as well as whitefish. I is possible for a few years of chaos but after a few years it would likely balance out and there may be a balanced fishery at the end of it all. The pike that are already in there would bring the biomass down as the feeder fish would allow the pike to develop at a normal rate. 1 reg change there should be right now, no keeping pike for a few years there and keeping say 2 walleye.

[freeones]

From SRD
2.3 million Walleye fry were stocked in Pine Coulee Reservoir in the spring of 2000, with another 1.8 million stocked in the spring of 2002. Stocking of cyprinids and suckers collected from Willow Creek was also done in 2000 to try to establish a forage base for Walleye. Since then we have sampled the reservoir to monitor the Walleye population as it develops. In 2003, 2004, 2007, and 2009 gill netting was conducted to sample for larger Walleye in open, deeper areas of the reservoir. In 2005 and 2006 test angling was conducted to further sample larger Walleye for mercury analysis. In 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008, and 2009 beach seine netting in shallow areas of the reservoir was conducted to sample for juvenile Walleye (young of the year).



Gill net results

In 2003 over 60 Walleye were caught with an average fork length of about 10-11 inches. These were from the 2000 stocking event.

In 2004 close to 100 Walleye were caught with an average fork length of about 11-12 inches.

In 2007 about 50 Walleye were caught with an average fork length of about 13 inches.


In 2009 almost 130 Walleye were caught with an average fork length just over 13 inches. Stomach contents were analysed and ages determined. Only a single Walleye was less than 12 inches fork length. Its fork length was about 9.5 inches and it was aged 2 years old. This fish is believed to have resulted from natural spawning (not a stocked fish). All the other Walleye were between 12 and 15 inches long and either age 6 or age 9. They came from either the 2000 or 2003 stocking events. Stomach content analysis showed that of all the Walleye caught in 2009, only one contained partially digested fish, while all others either had empty stomachs or only invertebrates in their stomachs, mostly amphipods (Gammarus).



Test angling results

In 2005 35 Walleye caught in the spring had an average fork length of 12 inches.

In 2006 31 Walleye caught in the spring had an average fork length of 13 inches.



Beach seining results

In 2003 no young of the year Walleye were captured.

In 2004 no young of the year Walleye were captured.

In 2007 5 young of the year Walleye were captured at a single site.

Walleye spawning was also confirmed in 2007 though the use of egg traps set over spawning habitat, mid-April though mid-May.

In 2008 5 young of the year Walleye were captured at two sites.

In 2009 7 young of the year Walleye were captured at four sites.

All young of the year Walleye were around 1.5 inches long.



Ten years after completion of the Pine Coulee Project, the overall conclusion from these results is that a dense population of Walleye from the 2000 and 2003 stocking events has developed, but the growth rate of these fish has gradually decreased to the point that they have almost stopped growing now. Although spawning is occurring, there appears to be very limited survival of naturally spawned young (only one fish caught in gill nets in 2009 was a two year old). Stomach content analyses demonstrate Walleye are not feeding on fish, but primarily on amphipods (invertebrates). This is likely limiting their growth. All fish but the one age 2 fish sampled in 2009 did appear to have mature gonads, suggesting they could spawn, but the limited prey base may mean not all Walleye have sufficient energy to actually spawn. Another possibility is that despite successful spawning, very few young of the year survive the first summer due to poor conditions for survival (cold weather, wind and wave action, poor rearing habitat) or larval predation by other forage species present in the reservoir. Beach seine netting in shallow areas of the reservoir has shown White Suckers and Longnose Suckers are abundant, but the Walleye are not feeding on them. Other species of forage fish such as Lake Chub, Spottail Shiners, Emerald Shiners, and Fathead Minnow are also present, but in lower numbers.



Walleye fisheries across Alberta are classified into one of four management categories. In southern Alberta, all waterbodies were classified into one of two categories: newly stocked or vulnerable. Reservoirs and lakes in the first category have a zero catch limit (catch and release) while those in the vulnerable category allow for limited harvest. According to Alberta's Walleye Management and Recovery Plan, changes to the management status category (e.g., from newly stocked to vulnerable) are based on five biological characteristics: age-class distribution, age-class stability, growth, age-at-maturity, and catch rate. Although catch rate meets the criteria for changing the status category of Pine Coulee Reservoir,growth rate, age-at-maturity, age-class distribution, and age-class stability do not. Walleye in Pine Coulee Reservoir have reached maturity rapidly, the age-class distribution is extremely narrow (essentially only fish from the 2000 and 2003 stocking events are represented), and age-class stability is very low (if these two age classes were lost to overharvest there would be no younger age classes to fill their place). In order to change Pine Coulee Reservoir from the newly stocked to vulnerable category we need to have biological evidence that juvenile Walleye are surviving, reaching sexual maturity, and spawning successfully.



We will continue to monitor the reservoir and evaluate the feasibility of various options for establishing a sustainable fishery. A risk assessment considering the impacts to the reservoir itself, as well as to Willow Creek, would be required before considering introducing another prey species for Walleye. In terms of allowing limited harvest, a decision will have to be reach on whether a self sustaining Walleye fish can be established before this is considered. One factor to note is that a consumption advisory is in place for Walleye from this reservoir. Although concentrations of total mercury in analysed walley from Pine Coulee Reservoir (0.52 to 0.79 micrograms/gram) were within reported ranges for Walleye from rivers and lakes elsewhere in Canada and the United States, they were also above the threshold (0.5 micrograms/gram) where Health Canada recommends limits for consumption for different consumer groups (women, children, adults).

If you have any further questions about fisheries management on Pine Coulee Reservoir, please feel free to contact me again.

Great info Chubdarter. That's the kind of thing you can make informed decisions with.

Here's my take on it -

Everything is just fine, and while it's going to change over time, it's going to be just fine in the future too.

The best news to come out of that is that there is successful spawning and replacement in PCR. That's good evidence that the walleye population in PCR can be self sustaining at some level. Probably not at today's level, but that level is artificial, and could likely be maintained through periodic stocking.

IMHO, this boils down to exactly what a few others have talked about - overall biomass and the quality of the lake itself. No matter what "solution" is proposed, there's very little that can be done about those factors, they're fixed and finite.

The relatively low recruitment numbers speak more to the forage base and quality of the reservoir habitat than anything else. Like any other ecosystem, it's working toward balance. Every doe in the herd doesn't have twins after a particulary harsh fall and winter, and if the spring/summer are brutal, it's the fawns that are first to die. I don't see the walleye population being any different. When the stocked age classes begin dieing off, then recruitment will step up to help fill void left in the available biomass.

Stocking forage, having a limited harvest, changing the structure of the lake, etc... will all have major effects on the ecosystem. In a relatively fixed system like PCR, those are all short term fixes aimed at a particular goal - to increase the size of the walleye population at the expense of the overall numbers of walleye. I don't agree with that line of thinking, not every lake needs to be managed as a "trophy" fishery, and furthermore, I don't think every lake can be managed that way. PCR isn't much more than big slough, it's never going to be a true trophy walleye fishery.

I wouldn't screw around with it if it was me, nature will take care of it itself, and those wanting fewer numbers and bigger fish will get their way eventually, just by doing nothing.

[jrs]

The lake has forage species (shiners, fathead minnows, chubs, all stocked or can enter through the inlet canal, screens are not sufficient to stop young of year cyprinids, or burbot, or suckers for that matter). Very low numbers of minnows in the lake from what i understand, plenty of suckers though. I just don't know if i can see walleye harvest being allowed, aside from the tag system, the lake is too close to Calgary.

[horsetrader]

Great info Chubdarter. That's the kind of thing you can make informed decisions with.

Here's my take on it -

Everything is just fine, and while it's going to change over time, it's going to be just fine in the future too.

The best news to come out of that is that there is successful spawning and replacement in PCR. That's good evidence that the walleye population in PCR can be self sustaining at some level. Probably not at today's level, but that level is artificial, and could likely be maintained through periodic stocking.

IMHO, this boils down to exactly what a few others have talked about - overall biomass and the quality of the lake itself. No matter what "solution" is proposed, there's very little that can be done about those factors, they're fixed and finite.

The relatively low recruitment numbers speak more to the forage base and quality of the reservoir habitat than anything else. Like any other ecosystem, it's working toward balance. Every doe in the herd doesn't have twins after a particulary harsh fall and winter, and if the spring/summer are brutal, it's the fawns that are first to die. I don't see the walleye population being any different. When the stocked age classes begin dieing off, then recruitment will step up to help fill void left in the available biomass.

Stocking forage, having a limited harvest, changing the structure of the lake, etc... will all have major effects on the ecosystem. In a relatively fixed system like PCR, those are all short term fixes aimed at a particular goal - to increase the size of the walleye population at the expense of the overall numbers of walleye. I don't agree with that line of thinking, not every lake needs to be managed as a "trophy" fishery, and furthermore, I don't think every lake can be managed that way. PCR isn't much more than big slough, it's never going to be a true trophy walleye fishery.

I wouldn't screw around with it if it was me, nature will take care of it itself, and those wanting fewer numbers and bigger fish will get their way eventually, just by doing nothing.


Sorry but if you read the information you will see the numbers are going up but the size is not so what you will end up with is another stunted walleye fishery until it dies. Without a proper food source the fish will not increase in size and reproduction will be minimal.

[oilngas]

Chub Darter;
I agree that things are just fine, the grandkids really enjoy catching the smallish walleye. They are of age where catching is way more important than fishing, they are after grandpa to take then out on the ice ASAP. I know that after a few hour on the lake we will be back heading to town with tired and happy kids.
it's great to have this resource so close to Calgary

[Dan Foss]

Chub Darter;
I agree that things are just fine, the grandkids really enjoy catching the smallish walleye. They are of age where catching is way more important than fishing, they are after grandpa to take then out on the ice ASAP. I know that after a few hour on the lake we will be back heading to town with tired and happy kids.
it's great to have this resource so close to Calgary

Sure, It is a great location. Nice and close to calgary, the dock is set up in a prime spot for fishermen just off that weed bed and dropoff(awesome walleye structure in any lake). But let me pose the question to you in this format:

My interpretation of the information provided is that there is a confirmation that there is a lack of forage base, extremely heavy competition for food, and either low spawning rates or low survival rates for fry. Given these facts, the fishery will eventually die off as there seems to be only 2 year classes of walleye in the lake. what would you propose then? a massive restocking to create 2 definitive year classes again so we can maintain our catch rates of 100+ stunted walleye in a trip? I can greatly appreciate the family value aspect that PCR has but here is the million dollar question: Would you be willing to sacrifice your 100+ walleye/day numbers for a lower 20-30 walleye/day if the walleye were varied in sizes (some big some small) if it meant the lake was NATURALLY restocking itself with young of the year? As a family you could still go there in a couple of hours everyone will have caught multiple fish. The fishing off the dock will always be really good given the structure that the dock sits on.

[Bigdad013]

Sure, It is a great location. Nice and close to calgary, the dock is set up in a prime spot for fishermen just off that weed bed and dropoff(awesome walleye structure in any lake). But let me pose the question to you in this format:

My interpretation of the information provided is that there is a confirmation that there is a lack of forage base, extremely heavy competition for food, and either low spawning rates or low survival rates for fry. Given these facts, the fishery will eventually die off as there seems to be only 2 year classes of walleye in the lake. what would you propose then? a massive restocking to create 2 definitive year classes again so we can maintain our catch rates of 100+ stunted walleye in a trip? I can greatly appreciate the family value aspect that PCR has but here is the million dollar question: Would you be willing to sacrifice your 100+ walleye/day numbers for a lower 20-30 walleye/day if the walleye were varied in sizes (some big some small) if it meant the lake was NATURALLY restocking itself with young of the year? As a family you could still go there in a couple of hours everyone will have caught multiple fish. The fishing off the dock will always be really good given the structure that the dock sits on.


I would do the sacrifice in a second. Catching 100 fish all the same I think would get boring after awhile. At least you could have a sandwhich and a drink inbetween..

[BeeGuy]

Great info Chubdarter. That's the kind of thing you can make informed decisions with.

Here's my take on it -

Everything is just fine, and while it's going to change over time, it's going to be just fine in the future too.

The best news to come out of that is that there is successful spawning and replacement in PCR. That's good evidence that the walleye population in PCR can be self sustaining at some level. Probably not at today's level, but that level is artificial, and could likely be maintained through periodic stocking.

IMHO, this boils down to exactly what a few others have talked about - overall biomass and the quality of the lake itself. No matter what "solution" is proposed, there's very little that can be done about those factors, they're fixed and finite.

The relatively low recruitment numbers speak more to the forage base and quality of the reservoir habitat than anything else. Like any other ecosystem, it's working toward balance. Every doe in the herd doesn't have twins after a particulary harsh fall and winter, and if the spring/summer are brutal, it's the fawns that are first to die. I don't see the walleye population being any different. When the stocked age classes begin dieing off, then recruitment will step up to help fill void left in the available biomass.

Stocking forage, having a limited harvest, changing the structure of the lake, etc... will all have major effects on the ecosystem. In a relatively fixed system like PCR, those are all short term fixes aimed at a particular goal - to increase the size of the walleye population at the expense of the overall numbers of walleye. I don't agree with that line of thinking, not every lake needs to be managed as a "trophy" fishery, and furthermore, I don't think every lake can be managed that way. PCR isn't much more than big slough, it's never going to be a true trophy walleye fishery.

I wouldn't screw around with it if it was me, nature will take care of it itself, and those wanting fewer numbers and bigger fish will get their way eventually, just by doing nothing.


Great post. What you are talking about perhaps without realizing it is "Population Ecology".

Over-population has some pretty typical outcomes.

[freeones]

Sorry but if you read the information you will see the numbers are going up but the size is not so what you will end up with is another stunted walleye fishery until it dies. Without a proper food source the fish will not increase in size and reproduction will be minimal.

I read the information. I just don't agree with you regarding how that information is interpreted.

The lack of growth is directly related to the forage base, size, and quality of the water body, I think everyone would agree on that. Put a walleye fry in your fish tank at home, and no matter what or how much you feed it, it isn't going to grow to be a 10lber. Reproduction is limited by the same factors. There won't be a big recruitment year class until there's room in the lake for them to actually compete and survive.

The fishery won't die. It won't stay the same as it is today, but it's not going to die unless it's opened up to unregulated harvest. There is natural reproduction, and the lake has proven that it is capable of sustaining a walleye population. It will find it's own equillibrium, likely one closer to what those who support monkeying around with it want anyway.

I agree it's a stunted walleye population. The difference is, I'm OK with that. If I want to catch fewer bigger fish, I go to a different lake, there's tons of options available for that. If I want to go with kids and catch 100 small ones, I go to PCR. It's a unique lake, and it has a place as is, despite those who wish to change it to meet their definition of a "good" fishery.

[freeones]

Great post. What you are talking about perhaps without realizing it is "Population Ecology".

Over-population has some pretty typical outcomes.

Thank you.

I'm well aware of it, and I'd like to think I have a pretty good understanding of what the limiting factors are and how it will play out long term. The stocking of millions of walleye in a new, previously uninhabited reservoir is going to take a while to sort itself out.

[Dan Foss]

I read the information. I just don't agree with you regarding how that information is interpreted.

The lack of growth is directly related to the forage base, size, and quality of the water body, I think everyone would agree on that. Put a walleye fry in your fish tank at home, and no matter what or how much you feed it, it isn't going to grow to be a 10lber. Reproduction is limited by the same factors. There won't be a big recruitment year class until there's room in the lake for them to actually compete and survive.

The fishery won't die. It won't stay the same as it is today, but it's not going to die unless it's opened up to unregulated harvest. There is natural reproduction, and the lake has proven that it is capable of sustaining a walleye population. It will find it's own equillibrium, likely one closer to what those who support monkeying around with it want anyway.

I agree it's a stunted walleye population. The difference is, I'm OK with that. If I want to catch fewer bigger fish, I go to a different lake, there's tons of options available for that. If I want to go with kids and catch 100 small ones, I go to PCR. It's a unique lake, and it has a place as is, despite those who wish to change it to meet their definition of a "good" fishery.


understandable and i agree over time it will probably equal out. But here comes the issue. How long does that take? It can take a very very long time for things to occur naturally. so lets say another 7or so years before the two big year classes start dying and then slowly you MAY start seeing greater numbers of young of the year. but for the most part they will probably be fed on by the gigantic pike. But lets say healthy numbers survive. It will take another 6 years to get the first batch of fry back to the size they are now. then it will take another generation of walleye to start evening out the equilibrium between species in the lake. So your looking at 30-40 years. And your not even sure that it will balance itself out.

I would never suggest anything be done to manage the lake without solid research to back any management strategy......


Although I know a particular lake in calgary that has a perch problem that a bucket full of walleye would love to be in.......

[Ronbill]

Great post. What you are talking about perhaps without realizing it is "Population Ecology".

Over-population has some pretty typical outcomes.

A very interesting thread to say the least.

Many of you have touched on key issues, but nobody has hit the root cause. Against my better judgement, I will weigh in on this - I am a registered professional biologist afterall. :scared:

Yes BeeGuy it is all about population ecology and it is an over-population issue, but the top predators - the piscivorous fish - are not to blame (not initially). As alluded to earlier by pelada trochu, PCR has a very unbalanced ecosystem and dysfunctional food chain. One only needs to focus on the bottom link of the food chain to know there's a problem (or at least potential for problems). At the bottom, of course, is the phytoplankton - the algae and cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) that form the basis of the food web. I suspect (and I only say 'suspect' as I do not have any hard data - yet - to prove this) the phytoplankton community is unbalanced as it is dominated heavily by large colonial species of cyanobacteria. These are generally what turns the water green during summer and producing the unsightly blooms on many of Alberta's natural lakes and reservoirs during much of the open water season. Cyanobacteria tend to dominate eutrophic lakes - those aquatic systems with high absolute phosphorus concentrations and often low nitrogen relative to phosphorus conditions.

The problem with large colonial cyanobacteria is that very few aquatic organisms digest or even ingest them. Most cyanobacteria are poor food sources for zooplankton (the microscopic animals that graze directly on phytoplankton). Zooplankton will avoid cyanobacteria if at all possible and rather preferentially feed on smaller choice algae including green algae, chysophytes and diatoms. Hell, even larger invertebrates that either indiscriminately graze (i.e. snails) or filter-feed (i.e. mussels) don't actually digest them, but rather pass them through the gut intact (what is known as psuedo-faeces).:scared0015: I discovered this for myself during my Ph.D. research. :sHa_sarcasticlol:

Aquatic systems dominated by large cyanobacteria do not support the populations of large-bodied cladoceran zooplankton, like Daphnia (water fleas). This is a problem as the small planktivorous fish - the forage fish - feed primarily on large-bodied zooplankton. This has implications for fisheries management as simply adding forage fish (including young perch) would be a short-lived solution. There simply is no food (zooplankton) to feed forage fish and I will also point out here the necessity for large macrophytes (weeds) to provide safe refuge for forage fish from predators. Must have both food and refugia - pretty basic idea.:thinking-006:

Without proper algae, there is no large zooplankton. Without large zooplankton, there is no planktivorous (forage) fish. And without planktivorous fish, there are no piscivorous fish (with time).

Currently, we are left with old stunted top predators that have to feed on large invertebrates live snails, amphipods (Gammarus) and whatever else they can get a hold of. Hardly quality food for sportfish. I have experienced this dysfunction in other cyanobacteria-dominated lakes/reservoirs across the province (Driedmeat Lake near Camrose and Coal Lake near Wetaskiwin immediately come to mind) - sportfish are stunted and gut contents usually include Gammarus and snails - forage fish are rare. What I'm hearing in this thread is very similar to those systems.

As a government employee :( I guess I should offer some suggestions as to how we can fix this dysfunctional system. The solution is easy - change the phytoplankton community to a more balanced system, that is less cyanobacteria and more edible choice algae. With time the zooplankton community with change to support large-bodied cladocerans that forage fish need and they will flourish too. Then the sportfish will have proper food to support faster growth rates. :bad_boys_20: See simple.

In practice this is not so easy. :sign0161:
The geology of much of Alberta is nutrient (read phosphrous)-rich, thus our lakes tend to naturally support cyanobacteria-dominated systems (no Dorothy, this is not B.C.). :angry3: On top of that, intense agriculture AND development through much of the settled portion of the province exacerbates the problem (we've all heard the old saying: kill a cow, save a stream :sHa_sarcasticlol:). Changing eutrophic aquatic systems to lower nutrient environments is not easy especially for naturally derived nutrients, but proper manure management - ooops sorry I don't work for the Dept of Agriculture. Besides lunch is over and I'm union so back to work. :scared0018:

[jrs]

Sounds good on paper Ronbill, but this lake is nothing like the ones you mention. THose lakes are shallow weed muddy wetland like lakes, PCR is fairly deep, and fed by foothill/ mountain runoff, very low nutrient (phosphorus included). Not even close to eutrophic, mesotrophic at most. If it wouldn't have been for an expected sucker epidemic like experienced upstream in chain lakes, and cost, im betting trout would have been chosen for stocking instead (on a put and take basis).

[Dan Foss]

A very interesting thread to say the least.

Many of you have touched on key issues, but nobody has hit the root cause. Against my better judgement, I will weigh in on this - I am a registered professional biologist afterall. :scared:

Yes BeeGuy it is all about population ecology and it is an over-population issue, but the top predators - the piscivorous fish - are not to blame (not initially). As alluded to earlier by pelada trochu, PCR has a very unbalanced ecosystem and dysfunctional food chain. One only needs to focus on the bottom link of the food chain to know there's a problem (or at least potential for problems). At the bottom, of course, is the phytoplankton - the algae and cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) that form the basis of the food web. I suspect (and I only say 'suspect' as I do not have any hard data - yet - to prove this) the phytoplankton community is unbalanced as it is dominated heavily by large colonial species of cyanobacteria. These are generally what turns the water green during summer and producing the unsightly blooms on many of Alberta's natural lakes and reservoirs during much of the open water season. Cyanobacteria tend to dominate eutrophic lakes - those aquatic systems with high absolute phosphorus concentrations and often low nitrogen relative to phosphorus conditions.

The problem with large colonial cyanobacteria is that very few aquatic organisms digest or even ingest them. Most cyanobacteria are poor food sources for zooplankton (the microscopic animals that graze directly on phytoplankton). Zooplankton will avoid cyanobacteria if at all possible and rather preferentially feed on smaller choice algae including green algae, chysophytes and diatoms. Hell, even larger invertebrates that either indiscriminately graze (i.e. snails) or filter-feed (i.e. mussels) don't actually digest them, but rather pass them through the gut intact (what is known as psuedo-faeces).:scared0015: I discovered this for myself during my Ph.D. research. :sHa_sarcasticlol:

Aquatic systems dominated by large cyanobacteria do not support the populations of large-bodied cladoceran zooplankton, like Daphnia (water fleas). This is a problem as the small planktivorous fish - the forage fish - feed primarily on large-bodied zooplankton. This has implications for fisheries management as simply adding forage fish (including young perch) would be a short-lived solution. There simply is no food (zooplankton) to feed forage fish and I will also point out here the necessity for large macrophytes (weeds) to provide safe refuge for forage fish from predators. Must have both food and refugia - pretty basic idea.:thinking-006:

Without proper algae, there is no large zooplankton. Without large zooplankton, there is no planktivorous (forage) fish. And without planktivorous fish, there are no piscivorous fish (with time).

Currently, we are left with old stunted top predators that have to feed on large invertebrates live snails, amphipods (Gammarus) and whatever else they can get a hold of. Hardly quality food for sportfish. I have experienced this dysfunction in other cyanobacteria-dominated lakes/reservoirs across the province (Driedmeat Lake near Camrose and Coal Lake near Wetaskiwin immediately come to mind) - sportfish are stunted and gut contents usually include Gammarus and snails - forage fish are rare. What I'm hearing in this thread is very similar to those systems.

As a government employee :( I guess I should offer some suggestions as to how we can fix this dysfunctional system. The solution is easy - change the phytoplankton community to a more balanced system, that is less cyanobacteria and more edible choice algae. With time the zooplankton community with change to support large-bodied cladocerans that forage fish need and they will flourish too. Then the sportfish will have proper food to support faster growth rates. :bad_boys_20: See simple.

In practice this is not so easy. :sign0161:
The geology of much of Alberta is nutrient (read phosphrous)-rich, thus our lakes tend to naturally support cyanobacteria-dominated systems (no Dorothy, this is not B.C.). :angry3: On top of that, intense agriculture AND development through much of the settled portion of the province exacerbates the problem (we've all heard the old saying: kill a cow, save a stream :sHa_sarcasticlol:). Changing eutrophic aquatic systems to lower nutrient environments is not easy especially for naturally derived nutrients, but proper manure management - ooops sorry I don't work for the Dept of Agriculture. Besides lunch is over and I'm union so back to work. :scared0018:

Very very very cool read. I am still trying to process it.... lol nice work. good to see another bio on board.

[Ronbill]

Sounds good on paper Ronbill, but this lake is nothing like the ones you mention. THose lakes are shallow weed muddy wetland like lakes, PCR is fairly deep, and fed by foothill/ mountain runoff, very low nutrient (phosphorus included). Not even close to eutrophic, mesotrophic at most. If it wouldn't have been for an expected sucker epidemic like experienced upstream in chain lakes, and cost, im betting trout would have been chosen for stocking instead (on a put and take basis).

Actually, both Driedmeat and Coal Lakes were formed in a similar manner (ok they are online reservoirs as opposed to offline) as PCR. They are all reservoirs with flow control structures. The big diff is that PCR is relatively young compared to the other two.

I checked the recent nutrient data and one basin of PCR is mesotrophic and the other is classified as eutrophic. More recently we (Alberta Environemnt) have began monitoring lakes and reservoirs including PCR for the microcystin toxin - a liver toxin produced by some species of large colonial cyanobacteria. It does show up in PCR (and Chain lakes res too), which leads me to conclude the dominance of cyanobacteria in PCR at least from July through September. For us to obtain microcystin levels in excess of 1 ug/L of lake water, high biomass of toxin-producing cyanobacteria is required.
I should also take this oportunity to dispell any other myths around toxic cyanos, namely: cyanobacteria exist in all aquatic ecosystems naturally and not all species grow exclusively in nutrient rich, shallow waters. There are some species that prefer mesotrophic (lower nutrient) systems and produce several types of toxin. Fortunately these species do not form blooms at the surface but rather congregate at deeper depths where light intensity is much reduced. These species grow and photosynthesize optimally in low light. Coincidentally, these species are also responsible for turning some lakes/reservoirs red immediately following ice during spring. Don't drink that water.:scared0015:

[Dan Foss]

I checked the recent nutrient data and one basin of PCR is mesotrophic and the other is classified as eutrophic. More recently we (Alberta Environemnt) have began monitoring lakes and reservoirs including PCR for the microcystin toxin - a liver toxin produced by some species of large colonial cyanobacteria. It does show up in PCR (and Chain lakes res too), which leads me to conclude the dominance of cyanobacteria in PCR at least from July through September. For us to obtain microcystin levels in excess of 1 ug/L of lake water, high biomass of toxin-producing cyanobacteria is required.
I should also take this oportunity to dispell any other myths around toxic cyanos, namely: cyanobacteria exist in all aquatic ecosystems naturally and not all species grow exclusively in nutrient rich, shallow waters. There are some species that prefer mesotrophic (lower nutrient) systems and produce several types of toxin. Fortunately these species to not form bloms at the surface but rather congregate at deeper depths where light intensity is much reduced. These species grow and photosynthesize optimally in low light. Coincidentally, these species are also responsible for turning some lakes/reservoirs red immediately following ice during spring. Don't drink that water.:scared0015:


It does make sense. PCR is one of the greenest lakes that I have ever seen in mid summer. It gets so green that visibility is often only approximately 3-4 feet. Not kidding. my buddy had dropped a brand new rod I bought for him in the lake and we made him attempt to dive for it (approx 24 feet deep. We knew there was no way he would get it but we wanted to laugh at him while he tried.)when he was hanging onto the boat, the water was so discoloured that you could only see the top of his legs; couldnt see his knees or feet. I made note of that as I would never want to dive into that water myself.

[Ronbill]

It does make sense. PCR is one of the greenest lakes that I have ever seen in mid summer. It gets so green that visibility is often only approximately 3-4 feet. Not kidding. my buddy had dropped a brand new rod I bought for him in the lake and we made him attempt to dive for it (approx 24 feet deep. We knew there was no way he would get it but we wanted to laugh at him while he tried.)when he was hanging onto the boat, the water was so discoloured that you could only see the top of his legs; couldnt see his knees or feet. I made note of that as I would never want to dive into that water myself.

I thought so. I talked to my field staff in the Calgary office (as I unfortunately never made it out to PCR to see for myself) and they also said it can get quite green.
I'll say this, bloom-forming cyanobacteria does discriminate based on water depth. What is critical is that PCR is a relatively stagnant (read: low flow) system and with enough nutrient to satisfy growth and dominance by bloom-forming cyanos. If PCR was an online system recceiving very low nutrient water from the Bow River for instance, then the situation would be different - cyanobacteria would likely not dominate.:)

[Dan Foss]

I thought so. I talked to my field staff in the Calgary office (as I unfortunately never made it out to PCR to see for myself) and they also said it can get quite green.
I'll say this, bloom-forming cyanobacteria does discriminate based on water depth. What is critical is that PCR is a relatively stagnant (read: low flow) system and with enough nutrient to satisfy growth and dominance by bloom-forming cyanos. If PCR was an online system recceiving very low nutrient water from the Bow River for instance, then the situation would be different - cyanobacteria would likely not dominate.:)

Very interesting. so what exactly can be done to control cyanobacteria? is it strictly because it is a low flow res. with minimal neutrients? is it even something that can even be managed? Are there and plants or other organisms that can keep cyanobacteria at low levels?

[freeones]

understandable and i agree over time it will probably equal out. But here comes the issue. How long does that take? It can take a very very long time for things to occur naturally. so lets say another 7or so years before the two big year classes start dying and then slowly you MAY start seeing greater numbers of young of the year. but for the most part they will probably be fed on by the gigantic pike. But lets say healthy numbers survive. It will take another 6 years to get the first batch of fry back to the size they are now. then it will take another generation of walleye to start evening out the equilibrium between species in the lake. So your looking at 30-40 years. And your not even sure that it will balance itself out.

I would never suggest anything be done to manage the lake without solid research to back any management strategy......

Although I know a particular lake in calgary that has a perch problem that a bucket full of walleye would love to be in.......

I see good news in your post, not doom. You're suggesting that things will remain pretty much as they are for the next 7 or more years, and that without the fishery collapsing, it will correct itself over time with no need for outside interference.

It's been shown that PCR can support young of the year and fingerlings to maturity in the past, that tells me it can do it again if the biomass base is available for their growth. Yes there are lots of predators, but EVERY lake has lots of predators.

Opening up PCR to harvest will simply speed up the process of removing the two main year classes, drastically if it isn't strictly controlled. It won't fundamentally change the rate at which the walleye population replenishes itself, it's still going to take the same amont of time. All that's been accomplished is to decrease the walleye population artificially and move the timetable for change ahead by a few years. I don't see the point in that.

I don't see adding a bunch of forage fish as an option either, Ronbill makes a good argument for that being a failure, and again, there's limited biological carrying capacity.

So what are the remaining options? Stocking again? At this stage, I think it would be pointless, it's already at max capacity. It might be a very viable option in the future to help supplement the walleye's natural recruitment rate if the quality of the fishery really suffers.

The only other option is exactly what Ronbill suggests, and that's trying to improve the quality of the water and boost the bottom links of the food chain. I don't know how you do that, but that's something that I could support.

It's all well and good to want to do something, but doing something just for the sake of doing it is not sound reasoning, nor is a personal preference for the type of fishing that exists in a certain lake.

[Dan Foss]

I see good news in your post, not doom. You're suggesting that things will remain pretty much as they are for the next 7 or more years, and that without the fishery collapsing, it will correct itself over time with no need for outside interference.

It's been shown that PCR can support young of the year and fingerlings to maturity in the past, that tells me it can do it again if the biomass base is available for their growth. Yes there are lots of predators, but EVERY lake has lots of predators.

Opening up PCR to harvest will simply speed up the process of removing the two main year classes, drastically if it isn't strictly controlled. It won't fundamentally change the rate at which the walleye population replenishes itself, it's still going to take the same amont of time. All that's been accomplished is to decrease the walleye population artificially and move the timetable for change ahead by a few years. I don't see the point in that.

I don't see adding a bunch of forage fish as an option either, Ronbill makes a good argument for that being a failure, and again, there's limited biological carrying capacity.

So what are the remaining options? Stocking again? At this stage, I think it would be pointless, it's already at max capacity. It might be a very viable option in the future to help supplement the walleye's natural recruitment rate if the quality of the fishery really suffers.

The only other option is exactly what Ronbill suggests, and that's trying to improve the quality of the water and boost the bottom links of the food chain. I don't know how you do that, but that's something that I could support.

It's all well and good to want to do something, but doing something just for the sake of doing it is not sound reasoning, nor is a personal preference for the type of fishing that exists in a certain lake.

LOL. I never states as a fact that things wont change, I was just following by the logic of the people who have been saying do nothing and that the fishery is fine as is. I cannot tell you if it will be fine for future years or not. I also agree that RonBill has provided a great deal of insight that completely changes positions and stance on the lake. and that should be the starting point

[Ronbill]

I see good news in your post, not doom. You're suggesting that things will remain pretty much as they are for the next 7 or more years, and that without the fishery collapsing, it will correct itself over time with no need for outside interference.

It's been shown that PCR can support young of the year and fingerlings to maturity in the past, that tells me it can do it again if the biomass base is available for their growth. Yes there are lots of predators, but EVERY lake has lots of predators.

Opening up PCR to harvest will simply speed up the process of removing the two main year classes, drastically if it isn't strictly controlled. It won't fundamentally change the rate at which the walleye population replenishes itself, it's still going to take the same amont of time. All that's been accomplished is to decrease the walleye population artificially and move the timetable for change ahead by a few years. I don't see the point in that.

I don't see adding a bunch of forage fish as an option either, Ronbill makes a good argument for that being a failure, and again, there's limited biological carrying capacity.

So what are the remaining options? Stocking again? At this stage, I think it would be pointless, it's already at max capacity. It might be a very viable option in the future to help supplement the walleye's natural recruitment rate if the quality of the fishery really suffers.

The only other option is exactly what Ronbill suggests, and that's trying to improve the quality of the water and boost the bottom links of the food chain. I don't know how you do that, but that's something that I could support.

It's all well and good to want to do something, but doing something just for the sake of doing it is not sound reasoning, nor is a personal preference for the type of fishing that exists in a certain lake.

Dan, as humans we tend to always look from the top down (i.e. focussing on the sportfish). However, getting to the root of the problem (i.e. cyanobacteria dominace) means bottom-up in this case and is the only sustainable way of changing the fishery over the long-term.

It would be pointless to continue stocking sportfish in PCR and I suspect some limited harvest of fish could help - just don't tell my counterparts in SRD I said that :thinking-006:

[Dan Foss]

Dan, as humans we tend to always look from the top down (i.e. focussing on the sportfish). However, getting to the root of the problem (i.e. cyanobacteria dominace) means bottom-up in this case and is the only sustainable way of changing the fishery over the long-term.

It would be pointless to continue stocking sportfish in PCR and I suspect some limited harvest of fish could help - just don't tell my counterparts in SRD I said that :thinking-006:

I think you mean Freeones, not dan. I am against stocking. stocking if for put and take trout lakes IMO

[DarkAisling]

Thank you, very much, for your sound contributions to this thread, Ronbill. It is refreshing to hear from someone with knowledge about the specific situation that PCR is facing.

[iliketrout]

Thanks for weighing in Ronbill. Appreciate the information!

[pelada trochu]

glad there is someone out there who REALLY understands this process.
Very much applaude the buttom up approach to establishing a fishery. Takes longer and most of us are used to getting our Big Mac now.

I dont know how you adjust the bottom but one thing apparent from the above read was that the fry cant survive because there is no food for them. That kills just about every idea until you have a food source for the beginning segment of the fish chain.

establish that food source for the fry, habitat for them to hide and the problem is solved as everything will grow from there. The current year class will die out but begin to be replaced.

just because you see crows feeding in a mall parking lot doesnt mean its a good place to raise birds.

[Ronbill]

I think you mean Freeones, not dan. I am against stocking. stocking if for put and take trout lakes IMO

Right you are Dan, the stocking reference was not directed at you.

I'm very happy you and others recognize nothing will change (likely get worse) unless we manage things carefully.

[oilngas]

you question is a good one, I guess that's why we take the older grandson and his Dad to Crawling. Generally a very different expearence, but bigger walleye, I seem to be stuck at 67 cm. However Crawling is a full day and the little guys are just a little young, sometimes it take awhile to figure out what they want etc. When i think about it thats the value I see at Pine Coulee, take a newby, my older girls, the Grandkids, new Canadians, it just doen't matter they catch fish. i have yet to have them ask for bigger fish, Pine Coulee sparks their interest in the sport of fishing like nothing else i know.

here a big guess, the mortality from catch n release is a factor and eventually all things will even out.

To me i would hate to see additional harvest on any of the Southern Reservoirs. Basically some people are piggy, again a guess but a zero limit is way easier to enforce with the very limited SRD budgets.

[WayneChristie]

Basically some people are piggy, again a guess but a zero limit is way easier to enforce with the very limited SRD budgets.

not sure I understand the reasoning behind that statement, if the officer is checking for fish possession, how long does it take to hold a measuring device beside the fish , hes already invested the time to stop the person and search his boat/vehicle. takes a couple seconds to measure each one. if there is a zero limit he still has to do the same search and ask the same questions. so 4 extra seconds only takes what, 4 seconds?

[horsetrader]

I see good news in your post, not doom. You're suggesting that things will remain pretty much as they are for the next 7 or more years, and that without the fishery collapsing, it will correct itself over time with no need for outside interference.

It's been shown that PCR can support young of the year and fingerlings to maturity in the past, that tells me it can do it again if the biomass base is available for their growth. Yes there are lots of predators, but EVERY lake has lots of predators.

Opening up PCR to harvest will simply speed up the process of removing the two main year classes, drastically if it isn't strictly controlled. It won't fundamentally change the rate at which the walleye population replenishes itself, it's still going to take the same amont of time. All that's been accomplished is to decrease the walleye population artificially and move the timetable for change ahead by a few years. I don't see the point in that.

I don't see adding a bunch of forage fish as an option either, Ronbill makes a good argument for that being a failure, and again, there's limited biological carrying capacity.

So what are the remaining options? Stocking again? At this stage, I think it would be pointless, it's already at max capacity. It might be a very viable option in the future to help supplement the walleye's natural recruitment rate if the quality of the fishery really suffers.

The only other option is exactly what Ronbill suggests, and that's trying to improve the quality of the water and boost the bottom links of the food chain. I don't know how you do that, but that's something that I could support.

It's all well and good to want to do something, but doing something just for the sake of doing it is not sound reasoning, nor is a personal preference for the type of fishing that exists in a certain lake.



Can you show where you got this information from.

[freeones]

Can you show where you got this information from.

I find it odd that out of that whole post, that's the part you chose to single out, but just in case you're actually serious and you really don't understand, I'll explain it for you -

The walleye population in PCR is not native, it was introduced through the stocking of walleye. Walleye stocking is generally done using fingerlings, approximately 1-4cm in size. Those fingerlings thrived in PCR and represent the vast majority of the walleye population present in the lake today. Anecdotal and SRD data also shows that there is recruitment in PCR, however, it's limited by available forage and competition for that forage.

Based on that data, there's no reason to believe that PCR is not capable of supporting the young of the year and/or fingerlings to maturity in the future. No magic here, just the info readily available in this thread combined with some common sense.

[freeones]

I think you mean Freeones, not dan. I am against stocking. stocking if for put and take trout lakes IMO

Actually, I thought I made my thoughts on stocking pretty clear -

So what are the remaining options? Stocking again? at this stage, I think it would be pointless it's already at max capacity. It might be a very viable option in the future to help supplement the walleye's natural recruitment rate if the quality of the fishery really suffers.

ie, if the current year classes are lost, the population drops off dramatically, and the evidence suggests that natural recruitment can't fill the gap, at that point, I think further stocking would be an option.

[freeones]

double post

[jrs]

When the old walleye start dying off you'll see new ones move in or another species take their place. If there's an open niche, it will be filled. The original walleyes used for stocking looked like hairs when they were released, they grew up. More recent seining shows successful recruitment. Remember, seining isn't meant to be used quantitatively, it's to demonstrate spawning success in this case. It's a big lake, walleyes fry will be found in many many places not sampled or even suitable for seining.

[horsetrader]

From SRD
2.3 million Walleye fry were stocked in Pine Coulee Reservoir in the spring of 2000, with another 1.8 million stocked in the spring of 2002. Stocking of cyprinids and suckers collected from Willow Creek was also done in 2000 to try to establish a forage base for Walleye. Since then we have sampled the reservoir to monitor the Walleye population as it develops. In 2003, 2004, 2007, and 2009 gill netting was conducted to sample for larger Walleye in open, deeper areas of the reservoir. In 2005 and 2006 test angling was conducted to further sample larger Walleye for mercury analysis. In 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008, and 2009 beach seine netting in shallow areas of the reservoir was conducted to sample for juvenile Walleye (young of the year).



Gill net results

In 2003 over 60 Walleye were caught with an average fork length of about 10-11 inches. These were from the 2000 stocking event.

In 2004 close to 100 Walleye were caught with an average fork length of about 11-12 inches.

In 2007 about 50 Walleye were caught with an average fork length of about 13 inches.


In 2009 almost 130 Walleye were caught with an average fork length just over 13 inches. Stomach contents were analysed and ages determined. Only a single Walleye was less than 12 inches fork length. Its fork length was about 9.5 inches and it was aged 2 years old. This fish is believed to have resulted from natural spawning (not a stocked fish). All the other Walleye were between 12 and 15 inches long and either age 6 or age 9. They came from either the 2000 or 2003 stocking events. Stomach content analysis showed that of all the Walleye caught in 2009, only one contained partially digested fish, while all others either had empty stomachs or only invertebrates in their stomachs, mostly amphipods (Gammarus).



Test angling results

In 2005 35 Walleye caught in the spring had an average fork length of 12 inches.

In 2006 31 Walleye caught in the spring had an average fork length of 13 inches.



Beach seining results

In 2003 no young of the year Walleye were captured.

In 2004 no young of the year Walleye were captured.

In 2007 5 young of the year Walleye were captured at a single site.

Walleye spawning was also confirmed in 2007 though the use of egg traps set over spawning habitat, mid-April though mid-May.

In 2008 5 young of the year Walleye were captured at two sites.

In 2009 7 young of the year Walleye were captured at four sites.

All young of the year Walleye were around 1.5 inches long.



Ten years after completion of the Pine Coulee Project, the overall conclusion from these results is that a dense population of Walleye from the 2000 and 2003 stocking events has developed, but the growth rate of these fish has gradually decreased to the point that they have almost stopped growing now. Although spawning is occurring, there appears to be very limited survival of naturally spawned young (only one fish caught in gill nets in 2009 was a two year old). Stomach content analyses demonstrate Walleye are not feeding on fish, but primarily on amphipods (invertebrates). This is likely limiting their growth. All fish but the one age 2 fish sampled in 2009 did appear to have mature gonads, suggesting they could spawn, but the limited prey base may mean not all Walleye have sufficient energy to actually spawn. Another possibility is that despite successful spawning, very few young of the year survive the first summer due to poor conditions for survival (cold weather, wind and wave action, poor rearing habitat) or larval predation by other forage species present in the reservoir. Beach seine netting in shallow areas of the reservoir has shown White Suckers and Longnose Suckers are abundant, but the Walleye are not feeding on them. Other species of forage fish such as Lake Chub, Spottail Shiners, Emerald Shiners, and Fathead Minnow are also present, but in lower numbers.



Walleye fisheries across Alberta are classified into one of four management categories. In southern Alberta, all waterbodies were classified into one of two categories: newly stocked or vulnerable. Reservoirs and lakes in the first category have a zero catch limit (catch and release) while those in the vulnerable category allow for limited harvest. According to Alberta's Walleye Management and Recovery Plan, changes to the management status category (e.g., from newly stocked to vulnerable) are based on five biological characteristics: age-class distribution, age-class stability, growth, age-at-maturity, and catch rate. Although catch rate meets the criteria for changing the status category of Pine Coulee Reservoir,growth rate, age-at-maturity, age-class distribution, and age-class stability do not. Walleye in Pine Coulee Reservoir have reached maturity rapidly, the age-class distribution is extremely narrow (essentially only fish from the 2000 and 2003 stocking events are represented), and age-class stability is very low (if these two age classes were lost to overharvest there would be no younger age classes to fill their place). In order to change Pine Coulee Reservoir from the newly stocked to vulnerable category we need to have biological evidence that juvenile Walleye are surviving, reaching sexual maturity, and spawning successfully.



We will continue to monitor the reservoir and evaluate the feasibility of various options for establishing a sustainable fishery. A risk assessment considering the impacts to the reservoir itself, as well as to Willow Creek, would be required before considering introducing another prey species for Walleye. In terms of allowing limited harvest, a decision will have to be reach on whether a self sustaining Walleye fish can be established before this is considered. One factor to note is that a consumption advisory is in place for Walleye from this reservoir. Although concentrations of total mercury in analysed walley from Pine Coulee Reservoir (0.52 to 0.79 micrograms/gram) were within reported ranges for Walleye from rivers and lakes elsewhere in Canada and the United States, they were also above the threshold (0.5 micrograms/gram) where Health Canada recommends limits for consumption for different consumer groups (women, children, adults).



If you have any further questions about fisheries management on Pine Coulee Reservoir, please feel free to contact me again.

I find it odd that out of that whole post, that's the part you chose to single out, but just in case you're actually serious and you really don't understand, I'll explain it for you -

The walleye population in PCR is not native, it was introduced through the stocking of walleye. Walleye stocking is generally done using fingerlings, approximately 1-4cm in size. Those fingerlings thrived in PCR and represent the vast majority of the walleye population present in the lake today. Anecdotal and SRD data also shows that there is recruitment in PCR, however, it's limited by available forage and competition for that forage.

Based on that data, there's no reason to believe that PCR is not capable of supporting the young of the year and/or fingerlings to maturity in the future. No magic here, just the info readily available in this thread combined with some common sense.


Oh yes I'm serious. The data show there is natural spawning but it is so minor that there is no way the fishery can sustain itself. The growth of the walleye has virtually stop and spawn in is almost non existent. That is the data and combine that with common sense and you have a fishery in trouble.

[Daceminnow]

yes. thank-you Ronbill for your insightful and informative posts.

your statement “Without proper algae, there is no large zooplankton. Without large zooplankton, there is no planktivorous (forage) fish. And without planktivorous fish, there are no piscivorous fish (with time),” to me does sum up the current status of the ecology in question and makes sense. that combined with the determined current poor habitat (both walleye spawning/rearing and baitfish) noted by the SRD, brings me back to my questions posed back in post #100.


i wonder if there's any plans to improve the habitat. i know stream improvements in the province have been done to improve spawning and rearing grounds. is it possible for these same types of habitat improvements to be made in lakes and reservoirs as well? or is it just that PCR is a relatively new reservoir and it will take some time to develop new and better habitat for the young to utilize and survive? we stay out of it, and let the ecosystem look after itself and our fish.


if yourself as well as some of the other government connected members could comment on my questions, i’d like to hear any thoughts and suggestions concerning habitat improvements. one way or another.

thanks,

Dace

[freeones]

Oh yes I'm serious. The data show there is natural spawning but it is so minor that there is no way the fishery can sustain itself. The growth of the walleye has virtually stop and spawn in is almost non existent. That is the data and combine that with common sense and you have a fishery in trouble.

I really don't know what else I can say, I think you missed my point entirely.

The fact is, the stocking of PCR was incredibly successful. The survival rate amongst the stocked walleye was obviously very high. The lake has since reached it's current max. carrying capacity, so survival of young of the year or additional stocked walleye would be expected to be very low. Others have commented on the recruitment success, reasons for it, and the validity of the seine results, I don't think I need to rehash it. The point is a simple one, the initial success and the current population bodes well for the lake's ability to replenish itself in the future.

I don't perceive the slowing of growth of the population as a problem, it's a natural reaction to the conditions in the lake. Again, not every fishery needs to be managed as a trophy fishery.

You've commented a lot about the perceived problems at PCR, but I'd love to know what specifically you would do solve those "problems".

[huntsfurfish]

Oh yes I'm serious. The data show there is natural spawning but it is so minor that there is no way the fishery can sustain itself. The growth of the walleye has virtually stop and spawn in is almost non existent. That is the data and combine that with common sense and you have a fishery in trouble.

Where did it say that? Actually, what was posted may indicate just the opposite.:)

[DarkAisling]

Where did it say that? Actually, what was posted may indicate just the opposite.:)

I think one's perception of the data is affected by whether or not someone is a "glass half full" or "glass half empty" type of person.

I personally found the data that was posted to be incredibly encouraging. There is proof of successful spawning (limited or not), and I have heard it said several times that the "walleye don't spawn in PCR." Apparently they do.

This is a young and man-made fishery: a scientific experiment of sorts. There is a lot of encouraging news in what was posted (if one cares to recognize it).

And honestly, when it comes to PCR, I can not for the life of me figure out what the fuss is all about. Are people being alarmists strictly to stir the pot? I can think of bigger things to get worked up about. Rome wasn't built in a day.

I'm also wondering how many of the alarmists have actually fished this lake.

[jrs]

Habitat improvement potential, as mentioned above, is possible in reservoirs. It is however expensive, and carries no guarantee of success. If you research it (i remember looking into this several years ago in college) there is a few success stories, and id say even more failures. Personally, i think Pine Coulee needs time for substrates to become more organic meaning more weeds and food production. There's other things that could be tried, realistically however, way too expensive considering the limited benefits you'd likely realize.
It was designed for walleye, the multi million dollar inlet canal and screens were intended to prevent other fish from getting in for as long as possible. Failed the first year as burbot fry fit right through (i walked along the canal at that point, you could see hundreds of burbot fry which came from willow creek).
They incorporated a lot of walleye spawning habitat, and as such it was kind of destined to become what it currently is. How many people realize the number of walleye stocked was actually considered low considering survival rates of fish that size? Initially, plans included more walleye over more years. Apparently, survival of the initial stockings was more succesful than anticipated. Fun to discuss what could be done, but i'm secretly hoping they just leave it alone.
Ive done seining on some irrigation canals that flow out of a popular walleye lake down here annually since i was very young as part of the salvage fishery (family has done this for 25years), over all the years, we've caught less than 10 juvenile walleye, compare that to litterally thousands upon thousands of whitefish, hundreds of pike, and dozens of mature walleye (3-10 lbs). the average pull would also have around 500-1000 forage fish (shiners, sculpins, fathead minnows, etc). No walleye have been stocked in the upstream lake recently, its still a great fishery, you don't need thousands of fry to show up in sampling to have a good walleye fishery, you just end up with bigger fish.

[horsetrader]

Where did it say that? Actually, what was posted may indicate just the opposite.:)

You are possibly right I should not have worded it that way but rather Although spawning is occurring, there appears to be very limited survival of naturally spawned young (only one fish caught in gill nets in 2009 was a two year old) Now could it be that what spawning there is the fry are being eaten as there is a low numbers of bait fish in the res.

[horsetrader]

I think one's perception of the data is affected by whether or not someone is a "glass half full" or "glass half empty" type of person.

I personally found the data that was posted to be incredibly encouraging. There is proof of successful spawning (limited or not), and I have heard it said several times that the "walleye don't spawn in PCR." Apparently they do.

This is a young and man-made fishery: a scientific experiment of sorts. There is a lot of encouraging news in what was posted (if one cares to recognize it).

And honestly, when it comes to PCR, I can not for the life of me figure out what the fuss is all about. Are people being alarmists strictly to stir the pot? I can think of bigger things to get worked up about. Rome wasn't built in a day.

I'm also wondering how many of the alarmists have actually fished this lake.

I don't believe I'm a half empty type of person but where i came from we did not wait for a problem to get out of hand before we considered different way to help out but if this makes me a half empty person in your eyes so be it. I did not realize you had to fish a water system to be concerned over it must be another one of those alberta thing. And if you read you will see in my first post I said I had not fished this particular area. But see I don't need to fish an area to know when fish growth stops and fish are skinny there is a problem.
Its not called being an alarmist where I'm from it's called common sense.

[huntsfurfish]

I don't believe I'm a half empty type of person but where i came from we did not wait for a problem to get out of hand before we considered different way to help out but if this makes me a half empty person in your eyes so be it. I did not realize you had to fish a water system to be concerned over it must be another one of those alberta thing. And if you read you will see in my first post I said I had not fished this particular area. But see I don't need to fish an area to know when fish growth stops and fish are skinny there is a problem.
Its not called being an alarmist where I'm from it's called common sense.

Concern is good whether you have fished the lake or not.

[anthony5]

Being fairly new to this forum I wasn't t sure I wanted to be bashed by the participants online, BUT eyes are creatures of habit, and there is no question that the eye,s are spawning but, how much protection is there for the young of the year to survive knowing the amount of predators that are in this small body of water with little food source. Key question is when will the spawning areas for walleye and if, will get a little protection without, suckers, burbot (ling) pike,walleye, picking off the small of the year . If they have a spawning area that is what they are looking for they will spawn when the urge hits, they have too. If this an unprotected area for the fry then the feed is on:sHa_shakeshout:
Their habit is to spawn in the same areas as they were reared, year after year. If no flowing water is available these fish will make do, predators or not. If the natural spawning areas in PCR pick up some cover for these newby's then things will change considerably. Other than that leave this place alone and let it become what it may.

P.S. Not that old but been around long time!

[BeeGuy]

I don't believe I'm a half empty type of person but where i came from we did not wait for a problem to get out of hand before we considered different way to help out but if this makes me a half empty person in your eyes so be it. I did not realize you had to fish a water system to be concerned over it must be another one of those alberta thing. And if you read you will see in my first post I said I had not fished this particular area. But see I don't need to fish an area to know when fish growth stops and fish are skinny there is a problem.
Its not called being an alarmist where I'm from it's called common sense.

You'll find that all of the fish in PCR are healthy.

The eyes are not skin and bones. They are muscular and feisty.

The few we caught today were 14" and deep in the body.

[horsetrader]

You'll find that all of the fish in PCR are healthy.

The eyes are not skin and bones. They are muscular and feisty.

The few we caught today were 14" and deep in the body.

As you say PICS!!!!!!!!!

[npauls]

I wouldn't say the eyes in pcr are unhealthy but they aren't fat either like other walleye lakes.

I really think some sort of bait fish would take the pressure off of the eyes a bit and you might start to see more age groups in the future.

[BeeGuy]

I wouldn't say the eyes in pcr are unhealthy but they aren't fat either like other walleye lakes.

I really think some sort of bait fish would take the pressure off of the eyes a bit and you might start to see more age groups in the future.

x2

Maybe even crayfish would be a decent food source.

There is a crazy amount of gammarus in the lake, anything that would eat the shrimp and could hide would be a good bet to get more biomass moving up the food chain.

Burbot guts today were packed with gammarus, caddis, and chironomid larvae.

[horsetrader]

x2

Maybe even crayfish would be a decent food source.

There is a crazy amount of gammarus in the lake, anything that would eat the shrimp and could hide would be a good bet to get more biomass moving up the food chain.

Burbot guts today were packed with gammarus, caddis, and chironomid larvae.

I would agree with you there I think crayfish would be an ideal food source to introduce. And should be easy to control to that area.

[BeeGuy]

I would agree with you there I think crayfish would be an ideal food source to introduce. And should be easy to control to that area.

Ya, I was thinking about the issue of dispersal, and I really don't know anything about crays in AB, so I won't speculate.

Just thinking there might be an alternative forage of some kind we haven't thought of.

I fished a lake trout lake in Northern ON once which was full of crays and the lakers fed on them as a primary food source. Medium sized and very plentiful fish. kinda cool

[Ronbill]

Ya, I was thinking about the issue of dispersal, and I really don't know anything about crays in AB, so I won't speculate.

Just thinking there might be an alternative forage of some kind we haven't thought of.

I fished a lake trout lake in Northern ON once which was full of crays and the lakers fed on them as a primary food source. Medium sized and very plentiful fish. kinda cool

I highly doubt crayfish introductions would ever happen as they would easily disperse both upstream and downstream in the Willow Creek system.

My understanding on crayfish in AB is that they were only native to the Beaver River drainage (Cold Lake region). Then they were discovered in the NSR a number of years ago (perhaps 15 years ago) well east of Edmonton. We found them in our water monitoring equipment ten years or more ago at Pakan bridge on the NSR. Now they have moved up the NSR west of Devon - as far a we know.

The most famous or rather infamous illegal introduction of crayfish in the province is of course Mcleod Lake, better known as Carson-Pegasus Prov Park north of Whitecourt.

[horsetrader]

Ya, I was thinking about the issue of dispersal, and I really don't know anything about crays in AB, so I won't speculate.

Just thinking there might be an alternative forage of some kind we haven't thought of.

I fished a lake trout lake in Northern ON once which was full of crays and the lakers fed on them as a primary food source. Medium sized and very plentiful fish. kinda cool

Have fished with fished for and eaten lots of crayfish. There is only one species of crayfish in alberta. But there will be a decline in invertebrates with the addition of crayfish but they are also a bottom feeder and will clean up dead fish and decaying plants filtering water and cleaning with fish and or plants can greatly improve the fishery.

[huntsfurfish]

Deleted, already mentioned

[jrs]

Crayfish would be a very bad idea. They would compete with the walleye and are awful invasives.. I know stomach content data from lakes choked with them down here has shown sportish don't key in on them that well. We don't need more invasives in our waterbodies.

[Ronbill]

[QUOTE=jrs;1202563]Crayfish would be a very bad idea. They would compete with the walleye and are awful invasives.. I know stomach content data from lakes choked with them down here has shown sportish don't key in on them that well. We don't need more invasives in our waterbodies.[/QUOTE

I agree completely

[freeones]

Maybe even crayfish would be a decent food source.

There is a crazy amount of gammarus in the lake, anything that would eat the shrimp and could hide would be a good bet to get more biomass moving up the food chain.

I would agree with you there I think crayfish would be an ideal food source to introduce. And should be easy to control to that area.

Response -

Crayfish would be a very bad idea. They would compete with the walleye and are awful invasives.. I know stomach content data from lakes choked with them down here has shown sportish don't key in on them that well. We don't need more invasives in our waterbodies.

I agree completely (with jrs)

This sums up nicely the dangers of "arm chair" fisheries management.

We've had someone with actual knowledge of the lake explain rather clearly what the issues are, and yet, we still have people proposing all kinds of rash ideas that are counter to that explanation to "improve" the fishery.

IF there is a disease, it's critical to make sure the "cure" isn't even worse.

[Dgirl]

So, a lot of good info and interesting discussion here. What if we started, as anglers, to put together a database. There's enough people here willing to wade in with opinions. Would people use it? Or would it just be more data that does nothing to help the fishery?

We could report date and hours fished, number of fisherman, bait used, # fish caught and size of fish in an on-line database. It'd be a neat feature for AO if only for bragging rights. Heck, I'd enjoy just setting this up independently for fun.

I've fished PCR and had a great day on the water. We would have loved to keep one for supper. Too bad about the mercury content. We would have been happy to pay for a tag to do it. As it was, we've made plans to trundle down next year for another great day of catch & release.

[horsetrader]

Response -





This sums up nicely the dangers of "arm chair" fisheries management.

We've had someone with actual knowledge of the lake explain rather clearly what the issues are, and yet, we still have people proposing all kinds of rash ideas that are counter to that explanation to "improve" the fishery.

IF there is a disease, it's critical to make sure the "cure" isn't even worse.



Thats right everyone should be like you and just bury your head in the sand and not see the problems. But see there are others that are not afraid to make suggestions and if someone can show where it won't work that good. After all this is a discussion forum.But thats ok you just sit back and wait for others to post then when it's commented on you can jump in like a big man.

....... got to love moronic people....

[freeones]

Thats right everyone should be like you and just bury your head in the sand and not see the problems. But see there are others that are not afraid to make suggestions and if someone can show where it won't work that good. After all this is a discussion forum.But thats ok you just sit back and wait for others to post then when it's commented on you can jump in like a big man.

....... got to love moronic people....

I know there's at least one quote "from the horse's mouth" around here somewhere about resorting to personal attacks and name calling when you've clearly lost a debate and you have nothing useful left to say. I really can't be bothered to track them down, your post speaks for itself.

The sky isn't falling.

[freeones]

I think CVR is a pretty good analogy, I ws actually thinking about that last night. Even 7-8 years ago you could go and have 100 fish days there almost without fail, and they'd all be around the same size as they are now at PCR. It's a different fishery today for sure. The quantity isn't there anymore, at least not regularly, but the quality of the fish does seem to have improved somewhat.

I wonder if these same discussions were going on about CVR back then??????

[BeeGuy]

I think CVR is a pretty good analogy, I ws actually thinking about that last night. Even 7-8 years ago you could go and have 100 fish days there almost without fail, and they'd all be around the same size as they are now at PCR. It's a different fishery today for sure. The quantity isn't there anymore, at least not regularly, but the quality of the fish does seem to have improved somewhat.

I wonder if these same discussions were going on about CVR back then??????

Was CV stocked in the same manner? with millions of fry?

[freeones]

Was CV stocked in the same manner? with millions of fry?

I believe it was, but I don't know for sure.

[snubber]

what does pcr stand for.i keep hearing alot about this.

[MoFugger21]

what does pcr stand for.i keep hearing alot about this.

Pine Coulee Reservoir

[jrs]

BeeGuy
"Was CV stocked in the same manner? with millions of fry? "

Would pretty much guarantee it. as mentioned before, the number used for Pine Coulee was actually pretty conservative. Survival of fry is very low, and walleye are rarely reared at hatchery to greater size due to their predatory nature at young age (try to eat each other). Initial plans included stocking over more years to diversify age class in PCR, pretty incredible how succesful the stocking was.

[Dan Foss]

Just going to throw this out there....... CVR may have been stocked in the same way but it is still a different lake with different hurdles. I believe through help of the a couple bios on board, we have somewhat unofficially established that PCR has an issue with blue-green algea that is creating a issue for establishing high populations of forage foods..... In order to compare one lake to the other, it is only acurrate if the both suffered from all of the exact challenges. And when considering lakes, each one has its own DNA so to speak.

[BeeGuy]

Just going to throw this out there....... CVR may have been stocked in the same way but it is still a different lake with different hurdles. I believe through help of the a couple bios on board, we have somewhat unofficially established that PCR has an issue with blue-green algea that is creating a issue for establishing high populations of forage foods..... In order to compare one lake to the other, it is only acurrate if the both suffered from all of the exact challenges. And when considering lakes, each one has its own DNA so to speak.


while blue-green algae may be a contributing factor, I still believe that it is the massive populations of pike-walleye-burbot in PCR which are suppressing both recruitment and a sustainable forage fish population.

[Ronbill]

Just going to throw this out there....... CVR may have been stocked in the same way but it is still a different lake with different hurdles. I believe through help of the a couple bios on board, we have somewhat unofficially established that PCR has an issue with blue-green algea that is creating a issue for establishing high populations of forage foods..... In order to compare one lake to the other, it is only acurrate if the both suffered from all of the exact challenges. And when considering lakes, each one has its own DNA so to speak.

Even though CVR gets Bow River water, there are similarities between PCR and CVR in terms of water quality. Also, both are offstream reservoirs with inlets and outlets placed along adjacent areas (not flow through systems). As discussed earlier, this is not the best arrangement as it creates ideal water column stability for growth of cyanobacteria. Thus BOTH reservoirs suffer from nuissance blooms of cyanobacteria (infact we did conduct sampling on CVR this summer and fall to document phytoplankton community assemblage and biomass - results pending analyses).

I think there are some key differences between the two that influenced the initial biota and the resulting fisheries of each reservoir.
In the case of CVR, construction of the reservoir incoprated two existing mature waterbodies - namely Barkenhouse Lake and adjacent "South Reservoir" (see Atlas of Alberta Lakes). Resident species (incoporated into CVR) include: white sucker, longnose sucker, shorthead redhorse, burbot, fathead minnow, spottail shiner, trout‐perch, and brook stickleback (Mitchell and Prepas 1990). This means CVR had a diverse assemblage of fish including forage fish to feed a growing sportfishery.
Unlike PCR, CVR was originally stocked with brook trout, brown trout and rainbow trout during its first year of operation in 1985. These species have varied diets and are not strict piscivores. Only later was CVR stocked with walleye (over a three year period from 1990 to 1992). In addition pike and trout migrated in from the EID north Canal system.

So compared to PCR, CVR likely possessed far more biodiversity and thus a more balanced ecosystem able to support large predatory fish species - from the time the reservoir was created.
I think with time PCR will balance out a little more. What's needed is greater diversity in its biota.

[horsetrader]

I think CVR is a pretty good analogy, I ws actually thinking about that last night. Even 7-8 years ago you could go and have 100 fish days there almost without fail, and they'd all be around the same size as they are now at PCR. It's a different fishery today for sure. The quantity isn't there anymore, at least not regularly, but the quality of the fish does seem to have improved somewhat.

I wonder if these same discussions were going on about CVR back then??????



Even though CVR gets Bow River water, there are similarities between PCR and CVR in terms of water quality. Also, both are offstream reservoirs with inlets and outlets placed along adjacent areas (not flow through systems). As discussed earlier, this is not the best arrangement as it creates ideal water column stability for growth of cyanobacteria. Thus BOTH reservoirs suffer from nuissance blooms of cyanobacteria (infact we did conduct sampling on CVR this summer and fall to document phytoplankton community assemblage and biomass - results pending analyses).

I think there are some key differences between the two that influenced the initial biota and the resulting fisheries of each reservoir.
In the case of CVR, construction of the reservoir incoprated two existing mature waterbodies - namely Barkenhouse Lake and adjacent "South Reservoir" (see Atlas of Alberta Lakes). Resident species (incoporated into CVR) include: white sucker, longnose sucker, shorthead redhorse, burbot, fathead minnow, spottail shiner, trout‐perch, and brook stickleback (Mitchell and Prepas 1990). This means CVR had a diverse assemblage of fish including forage fish to feed a growing sportfishery.
Unlike PCR, CVR was originally stocked with brook trout, brown trout and rainbow trout during its first year of operation in 1985. These species have varied diets and are not strict piscivores. Only later was CVR stocked with walleye (over a three year period from 1990 to 1992). In addition pike and trout migrated in from the EID north Canal system.

So compared to PCR, CVR likely possessed far more biodiversity and thus a more balanced ecosystem able to support large predatory fish species - from the time the reservoir was created.
I think with time PCR will balance out a little more. What's needed is greater diversity in its biota.



I guess we don't always know what we think we do.........


As you can see i'm back .....LOL......until someone whines again.


MERRY CHRISTMAS>>>.

[honda450]

[/COLOR]


I guess we don't always know what we think we do.........


As you can see i'm back .....LOL......until someone whines again.


MERRY CHRISTMAS>>>.

Dang your back already? Think before ya hit that submit button boy. Or you go back to the corner.

[horsetrader]

Dang your back already? Think before ya hit that submit button boy. Or you go back to the corner.

Na can't change my ways always say what I think. Up to others if they want to listen.