Tournament Mortality Rates

[Levy]

Had no idea it could be this bad. Its an interesting read. If this info is correct I think walleye tournaments should be restricted to the specified cold water season.

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/FisheriesManagement/documents/CFE-HarvestBycatchEstimations-Oct2011.pdf

[pickrel pat]

pelicans are routinely seen chasing after SAWT anglers down the hiway, heading to the next tourney.......... heck, the old pelicans fly ahead and greet the anglers upon their arrival!:sHa_sarcasticlol: And the very very old pelicans know the tourny circuit better than the organizers!:sHa_sarcasticlol:

[npauls]

We rarely have a mortality in the SAWT.

We can't even get CFE permits for July and August and that is why our tournaments are always in May and June and this year we have one in September. The water temps in July and August are way to hot for a good survival rate.

There is more uneducated anglers and poachers around the province that do more damage in a single weekend then the SAWT anglers do.

[Freedom55]

As mentioned in another thread, the mortality rate at last (June30 & July1) weekend's WCWT sanctioned tournament on Delaronde lake at Big River was 2%, three fish on Saturday when it was smoking hot and two on Sunday when we battled up to 1m waves most of the day. That is equal to one angler's limit for a day of catch and keep, and there were 82 anglers on the water for two days.

Pre-fishing days are not for catching large numbers of fish; rather, they are days used to mark fish on the GPS for further exploration on game day, so mortality rates are negligable.

The numbers as presented by SRD are, by their own admission, estimated and therefore flawed when compared to real time observations, as presented by the tournment director (a retired Conservation Officer) and his still employed colleague during his presence at the tournament.

Free

[cube]

Thanks for the great info Levy. Totally agree with you on restricting it to the cold water season. Though I must say I think they are already doing that in lakes that can't support the unintended harvest.

To tell you the truth it is far better than I thought. Less than 1 mortality per tournament angler in 3.65 days when temps are less than 18 degrees seems quite reasonable. According to the data then that would be about the same rate that the average CNR fisherman has in a weekend. (Just basing that on myself, while not a good walleye fisherman at all I did catch 60 last weekend X 1.8% equals 1 fish removed from the lake). Given that these tournament anglers are still going to be fishing and not staying at home playing cards on the weekend if the tournaments closed down I guess we have a net sum of zero to be gained by closing the tournaments down, as long as said lake can handle CNR fishing that is.

While not suggesting this at all, it does give some thought to closing CNR fishing in July and Aug where the average weekend CNR fisherman would be killing 333% more. (don't you just love percentages they can make things look anyway you want, as I could have just said 4% more and still been correct!):)

Thanks again

[BeeGuy]

We rarely have a mortality in the SAWT.

We can't even get CFE permits for July and August and that is why our tournaments are always in May and June and this year we have one in September. The water temps in July and August are way to hot for a good survival rate.

There is more uneducated anglers and poachers around the province that do more damage in a single weekend then the SAWT anglers do.

SAWT contributes to fish mortality, don't kid yourself. The impact on fisheries is cummulative, not due to one source or another.

What are poaching SAWT anglers called?? Cheaters...

[Levy]

I can see how recreational anglers could do more damage than the tournament guys. Guys and gals in tournaments are usually a little more serious about fishing and experienced and handle fish with more respect (ie not picking them up by the eyes). Closing the fisheries during the warm months seems like a good idea but i doubt the government would go for it seeing how those warm months likely attract the most anglers and provide the most purchases of fishing licences. I am curious if that is the case in any alberta waters like cube mentioned? I think for myself though Im not going to do as much catch and release fishing in august. Even though the catch and immediate release is 6% and i know im quicker and more careful than most. That 18 degree water temp leaves most of the year for angling.

The thing that struck me the most about this was how huge the gab in mortality rates of the fish in warm water when they were immediately release as opposed to weigh in and released. Just goes to show how harmful culling fish can be.

[npauls]

SAWT contributes to fish mortality, don't kid yourself. The impact on fisheries is cummulative, not due to one source or another.

What are poaching SAWT anglers called?? Cheaters...

How do you poach during a tournament?

I am pretty mortality rates are kept during SAWT events and there are rarely any mentioned.

If you weigh in a floater or dead fish during an SAWT event I am pretty either that fish is dq'd or the team is dq'd.

Join the trail and you will see for yourself how things are.

You can talk all you want but until you experience it you really have nothing to back yourself up with.

[TROLLER]

I don't think the water temp is the deciding factor of mortality.

It is guys fishing the walleye in more than 25 FOW anything below that and you risk the fish bladder deflating and even tho you release the fish and it swims away under it's own power it soon will be floating belly up.

I have caught walleye many times that just could not be revived even tho I may have caught it in 15 FOW I always figure someone had hooked it up in deep water, released it and it will die not to far into the future.

IMHO

[cube]

I have always thought that CULLING should be made clearly illegal period. Even if a guy were to put refrigeration and pressurization into a live well I would still be against culling. Too me as soon as it goes into your boat live well, pail, what ever, it should be kept for disease control if nothing else. I think boats and especially live wells are very good at spreading pathogens around.

Good fishing to you

[AppleJax]

SAWT contributes to fish mortality, don't kid yourself. The impact on fisheries is cummulative, not due to one source or another.

What are poaching SAWT anglers called?? Cheaters...

:kick:

[BeeGuy]

How do you poach during a tournament?

I am pretty mortality rates are kept during SAWT events and there are rarely any mentioned.

If you weigh in a floater or dead fish during an SAWT event I am pretty either that fish is dq'd or the team is dq'd.

Join the trail and you will see for yourself how things are.

You can talk all you want but until you experience it you really have nothing to back yourself up with.

Ask the guys who have been disqualified for doing so.

Using barbed hooks etc. Do you think barbed hooks can contribute to mortality in C&R?

There is always mortality in C&R fishing when enough fish are caught and released.

Yes, the fish that are weighed in must be alive.

This does not take into account fish that cannot be weighed in.

Like many things, there is no perfect solution, and I am ok with that fact that sometimes a fish gotta die.

But to suggest that tournaments are somehow special in the impact they have isn't very realistic. Especially with those "pro's" who somehow 'forget' to pinch their barbs.

[sheephunter]

I think walleye tournaments should be restricted to the specified cold water season.

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/FisheriesManagement/documents/CFE-HarvestBycatchEstimations-Oct2011.pdf

They pretty well are no that they require a permit.

[sheephunter]

I don't think the water temp is the deciding factor of mortality.



Actually pretty well every study has shown that it's a huge factor.

[sheephunter]

Ask the guys who have been disqualified for doing so.

Using barbed hooks etc. Do you think barbed hooks can contribute to mortality in C&R? No proof that they do

There is always mortality in C&R fishing when enough fish are caught and released.

There's mortality is all fishing but it is very low in properly run and timed tournaments. Again, studies have proven this over and over again

Yes, the fish that are weighed in must be alive.

This does not take into account fish that cannot be weighed in.

Again, very low mortality in properly run and timed tournaments

Like many things, there is no perfect solution, and I am ok with that fact that sometimes a fish gotta die.

But to suggest that tournaments are somehow special in the impact they have isn't very realistic. Especially with those "pro's" who somehow 'forget' to pinch their barbs.

I'm guessing anglers from all walks of life occasionally forget to pinch a barb. It's easy enough to do.

[npauls]

Thanks for the reply TJ.

Pretty much sums up what I was going to say.

The team that was caught with a barbed hook was DQ'd. There are far more people out there fishing barbed hooks who aren't in a tourney then tourney anglers.

I am not saying there isn't mortalities in tournament fishing in Alberta. I am just saying it is quite rare to have a floater.

Like I said before. Join the trail and fish some tourneys if you want to actually see how things are ran. Until then your opinion doesn't really matter because you have no experience.

We have had Terry Clayton on the weigh boat in the past doing studies and checking things out and if I remember right he was really impressed at how things were ran.

[BeeGuy]

I don't doubt they are well run.

Some of the commentary was suggesting that there is next to no impact from tournament angling, and I find that to be unrealistic.

[sheephunter]

I don't doubt they are well run.

Some of the commentary was suggesting that there is next to no impact from tournament angling, and I find that to be unrealistic.

They weren't all at one time but current permitting and monitoring pretty well ensure they are well run these days. Let's settle on minimal impact. Considering all of those anglers would likely be out fishing somewhere anyhow, regardless if there was a tournament or not, the impact is not really increased significantly. From the studies I've seen and was involved in mortality is well below 5%. I guess to some that may seem like too much...for others it's acceptable.

[BeeGuy]

Below 5% would be pretty amazing.

How long were the fish retained for in the study you participated in?

[wellpastcold]

All of the tournament fishermen that I know, care about the effects of mortality, delayed or otherwise. I think what SRD and the other hand ringers had better get there head around is that, as citizens of Alberta we have the same rights and privileges as non tournament anglers. Most competitive anglers I know, do not routinely harvest their limit either during prefish or when recreational fishing. They are certainly entitled to but most do not. If anyone sincerely believes that the mortality calculated in this study even comes close to what you see in even one day in June at Slave Lake for recreational angling harvest, your dreaming in technicolour. If you have ever been in the fish plants that process the whitefish netted from Slave Lake you might find it odd that a lot of wall space is devoted to posters indicating the proper way to process walleye. Perhaps the authors of this report should have expressed there assumptions in kilograms so that it could be considered against the allowable by catch of walleye in the whitefish netting seasons. Then it might be understood just how insignificant this amount of fish was. In my opinion, I think this information does exactly what it is intended to do; it pits one group against another. It also distracts our attention away from the fact that Alberta is arguably the richest province in Canada and yet spends a pittance on the protection and enhancement of our resources. So little is spent at ground level by SRD on actually improving the situation ie: stocking. This is not a new phenomenon. Divide and conquer is a pretty standard political tactic. Be careful who and what you support. I have noticed there are a number of anglers on this forum that fish quite a few days a week. Once the tournament anglers are sent packing to Saskatchewan where they are welcomed for the economic benefits they bring, who will be the next target? the guys who fish too often? Remember those same mortality stats apply to you. An angler is an angler.

[sheephunter]

Below 5% would be pretty amazing.

How long were the fish retained for in the study you participated in?

Several days.

[schmedlap]

I think Sheephunter summed up the common sense analysis very concisely and accurately.
If I had known the advantages of fishing barbless, particularly for walleye and pike, years ago, I would have rendered all my stuff barbless long before I did, as a matter of personal enjoyment of the undertaking. When myself and my sons, or usual fishing acquaintances, fish outside Alberta, slt or fresh, regardless of what type of tackle or quarry, we now go barbless regardless of the regulations requiring it or not. Entirely aside from any legal requirement, I've found it has little or no net consequences in terms of actual "capture"(maybe its just for those experienced at this?), it is just so much easier to release the quarry (particularly large toothies, like pike) quickly and without evident harm, and it makes the whole experience more satisfying. I can't think of why I would ever want barbs on my hooks (with the possible exception of holding some kinds of bait - but don't we have the "technology" for that in most instances now?) again.
What is frustrating, I suppose, is that it is impossible to buy most end tackle of any kind without barbed hooks so it all has to be "modified". I understand that Alberta is such a small component of the overall market for such things that this is unlikely to change in the near term.
The consequence of the lack of retail barbless end tackle is that, of course, the cretins who don't care about regulations or the consequences to the resource, and have little chance of being punished for such ignorance, are not going to ever put forth the effort to modify. Hell, they can't even be bothered to read (if they can?) the regs. That represents a whole lot more fish mortality than all the tournaments combined and multiplied, by simple common sense.
I've even started removing the front set of double trebles on small cranks. After some experience of necessity (the last big pike removed them for me) I've discovered that, at least on some "fat rap" types and equivalents, I can outcatch my co-fishers in that mode, and it is even easier to release, less tangles in the net, etc.
I wouldn't mind at all paying a buck or two more for cranks and metal lures that come with barbless, and/or just less, hooks, if I could get them. Maybe there is a retailer out there who would consider doing their own pre-sale modifications and promoting this (?).

[TROLLER]

Weather they debarb the hook or not one of the deciding factors are some guys who fish a lindy rig use a very small size 10 hook. The fish has to take that hook all the way down it's mouth before the hook is set

9 times out of 10 the fish is bleeding when released. you tell me the result of that.

[BeeGuy]

Several days.
Are any of these studies published?
Got any reading material?
I think Sheephunter summed up the common sense analysis very concisely and accurately.
If I had known the advantages of fishing barbless, particularly for walleye and pike, years ago, I would have rendered all my stuff barbless long before I did, as a matter of personal enjoyment of the undertaking. When myself and my sons, or usual fishing acquaintances, fish outside Alberta, slt or fresh, regardless of what type of tackle or quarry, we now go barbless regardless of the regulations requiring it or not. Entirely aside from any legal requirement, I've found it has little or no net consequences in terms of actual "capture"(maybe its just for those experienced at this?), it is just so much easier to release the quarry (particularly large toothies, like pike) quickly and without evident harm, and it makes the whole experience more satisfying. I can't think of why I would ever want barbs on my hooks (with the possible exception of holding some kinds of bait - but don't we have the "technology" for that in most instances now?) again.
What is frustrating, I suppose, is that it is impossible to buy most end tackle of any kind without barbed hooks so it all has to be "modified". I understand that Alberta is such a small component of the overall market for such things that this is unlikely to change in the near term.
The consequence of the lack of retail barbless end tackle is that, of course, the cretins who don't care about regulations or the consequences to the resource, and have little chance of being punished for such ignorance, are not going to ever put forth the effort to modify. Hell, they can't even be bothered to read (if they can?) the regs. That represents a whole lot more fish mortality than all the tournaments combined and multiplied, by simple common sense.
I've even started removing the front set of double trebles on small cranks. After some experience of necessity (the last big pike removed them for me) I've discovered that, at least on some "fat rap" types and equivalents, I can outcatch my co-fishers in that mode, and it is even easier to release, less tangles in the net, etc.
I wouldn't mind at all paying a buck or two more for cranks and metal lures that come with barbless, and/or just less, hooks, if I could get them. Maybe there is a retailer out there who would consider doing their own pre-sale modifications and promoting this (?).

It would be great if freshwater lure retailers would provide quality barbless hooks as well as designs which did not require 3 trebles, but that is a topic for another thread.

[ReconWilly]

pelicans are routinely seen chasing after SAWT anglers down the hiway, heading to the next tourney.......... heck, the old pelicans fly ahead and greet the anglers upon their arrival!:sHa_sarcasticlol: And the very very old pelicans know the tourny circuit better than the organizers!:sHa_sarcasticlol:

:sHa_sarcasticlol:so true...

[huntsfurfish]

I for one would welcome a study on delayed mortality for the SAWT. We have always placed the fish "first" (measuring instead of weighing, and until this year, requiring at least two trips to a weigh to weigh your limit, at one time(form the start till fairly recently we had a buffer so that fish sizes were 50.5cm and 55.5cm so that even if a short fish was brought in it was still a legal fish.) weigh boats acted as weigh stations on at least 2 spots on the lake and were mobile- which makes it easier on the fish)). From the beginning we stressed the need to stay out of deep water(and the vast majority complied).

I dont believe our rates as as high as other studies! When JC and I started the trail alot of thought went into that!

[sheephunter]

Weather they debarb the hook or not one of the deciding factors are some guys who fish a lindy rig use a very small size 10 hook. The fish has to take that hook all the way down it's mouth before the hook is set

9 times out of 10 the fish is bleeding when released. you tell me the result of that.

I've fished livebait rigs for decades and the point of them is to allow the fish to get the bait in its mouth, not swallow it. On the rare occasion when a fish does take it in too far, you simply cut the line and let the hook fall out. No harm...no foul. We aren't talking trout here but walleye. They are far hardier when it comes to handling and hooking mortality.

[BeeGuy]

This is off topic, but does anyone ever catch trout while walleye fishing?

[sheephunter]

Are any of these studies published?
Got any reading material?




I would suspect so. They were done in Saskatchewan, Minnesota and Alberta. Google is your friend.

[huntsfurfish]

I've fished livebait rigs for decades and the point of them is to allow the fish to get the bait in its mouth, not swallow it. On the rare occasion when a fish does take it in too far, you simply cut the line and let the hook fall out. No harm...no foul. We aren't talking trout here but walleye. They are far hardier when it comes to handling and hooking mortality.

Exactly.

[huntsfurfish]

off topic, but still no real evidence to support barbless.:)

[Levy]

off topic, but still no real evidence to support barbless.:)

Thats what the local Bio was telling me the other day. He also said rapalas with several trebles are better than single prong hooks because they get caught on the face and lips more often than deep in the throat and stomach.

[fishnfoo]

I think that the main point of the study is that there is significant mortality involved with tournament fishing. Even if there is only 5% mortality it really adds up in a tornament because you have a large number of skilled anglers cycling through very large numbers of fish on one body of water.

As for the one poster who was concerned about the tournament fisherman's rights, how is collecting money and offering money and prizes for a tournament not a comercial fishery? Monetizing the resource is never a good thing. Good for the organizers and participants but not the fish. As for the community, I would imagine that they would get more bang for the buck hosting campers and amatures who would have less impact on the resource.

I know many posters here are big into tournament fishing but don't fool yourself into thinking that there is little or no impact on the resource. If huge numbers of fish are being caught then there is going to be significant motality. There is also no doubting that a tournament angler is going to spend more hours on the water and catch fish at a much higher rate than an average recreational angler. Just do the math.

[npauls]

I think that the main point of the study is that there is significant mortality involved with tournament fishing. Even if there is only 5% mortality it really adds up in a tornament because you have a large number of skilled anglers cycling through very large numbers of fish on one body of water.

As for the one poster who was concerned about the tournament fisherman's rights, how is collecting money and offering money and prizes for a tournament not a comercial fishery? Monetizing the resource is never a good thing. Good for the organizers and participants but not the fish. As for the community, I would imagine that they would get more bang for the buck hosting campers and amatures who would have less impact on the resource.

I know many posters here are big into tournament fishing but don't fool yourself into thinking that there is little or no impact on the resource. If huge numbers of fish are being caught then there is going to be significant motality. There is also no doubting that a tournament angler is going to spend more hours on the water and catch fish at a much higher rate than an average recreational angler. Just do the math.

Most tournament anglers are very serious about fishing and would be spending that time on the water cycling through the many fish whether there is a tournament or not. So really it doesn't matter if the tournament was hosted or not because those anglers are going to be out there either way.

Like mentioned before I think the uneducated anglers and poachers are doing way more harm to a fishery then tournament anglers ever will. The tournament anglers want the fishery to be as good as possible and for the most part do as much as they can to keep the lakes fishing well.

[huntsfurfish]

I think that the main point of the study is that there is significant mortality involved with tournament fishing. Even if there is only 5% mortality it really adds up in a tornament because you have a large number of skilled anglers cycling through very large numbers of fish on one body of water.

As for the one poster who was concerned about the tournament fisherman's rights, how is collecting money and offering money and prizes for a tournament not a comercial fishery? Monetizing the resource is never a good thing. Good for the organizers and participants but not the fish. As for the community, I would imagine that they would get more bang for the buck hosting campers and amatures who would have less impact on the resource.

I know many posters here are big into tournament fishing but don't fool yourself into thinking that there is little or no impact on the resource. If huge numbers of fish are being caught then there is going to be significant motality. There is also no doubting that a tournament angler is going to spend more hours on the water and catch fish at a much higher rate than an average recreational angler. Just do the math.

Much of the tackle, boats and electronic development was driven by tournament fishing and tournament fishermen. Easy to overlook that aspect also. Many fisherpeople have benefitted from the tournament angling. Knowledge and tactics are passed down to joe fisherman.

There are added benefits as well. Tournament anglers generally spend way more on tackle and related items. Local campgrounds benefit from filling a campground when normally few would be there. Fuel Food Lodging. The Fall SAWT tournament at St Mary Reservoir will benefit the Calves for Kids charity. And over the years friendships are made (another benefit). Boat launch improvements have been done by the trail, as have fun fishing days. The SAWT has offered and helped with lake assessment(sp). Tournament anglers have been involved in tagging programs etc.


If fishing is going down hill it will not be solely from tournaments. And if that bad, regs will change to allow recovery. Think about it, most if not all tournment anglers do not want to "rape" the resource because it would be the end of tournaments.

Chances are if you you need to shut down tournament angling then you need to shut down angling in general:)

[sheephunter]

I think that the main point of the study is that there is significant mortality involved with tournament fishing. Even if there is only 5% mortality it really adds up in a tornament because you have a large number of skilled anglers cycling through very large numbers of fish on one body of water.

.

The 5% and in most cases it was 2-3% if I remember correctly was for fish retained in a livewell and brought to the scale, not for fish caught and immediately released. I suspect the mortality for them is extremely low.

[bsnyder]

At the Big River Walleye Classic this year ,we had the Gov Bioligist watching and was soooooo impressed with the numbers.Our recovery tank has a dozzen airation jets with water pulled from bottom of marina.We put fish in here and if lively , we instantly put right back into marina.Over the 2 day event we only lost 5 fish(limit for 1 person for one day) and they were cleaned up and went to someone needey,who loves fresh fish)Most tourny fisherman do there utmost best to keep there fish healthy, its part of the game.Saterday we had water temps over 70 and Sunday up to 5 ft waves, yet very low mortality because the fishermen care.Me and my wife do not even keep hardly any fish during the year, we want our grand kids to catch fish too.Specialy in Alta ,where you keep the biger ones and realese the little ones.Tournys give small communities like ours a much needed economic boost for a week, plus its a lota fun.If we can work together with the biolegest, fish police, communitie and fisherman, it can be a great success for all.(we luv tourny fishing:sHa_shakeshout:)

[chubbdarter]

Is this a thread to state the Obvious?
No one can say any type of fishing is 100 percent enviromentally friendly. Rare and unusual circumstances will always occur. Competitive fishing is another avenue for fisherman to exercise a passion they have. They are strictly monitored by the SRD and i know as a fact the SRD will decline CFE's in situations they see unacceptable. Its my understanding enforcement is even ramped up during many of these events.
Much of the Media that everyone enjoys is tied to competitive fishing in some shape or form. Check the back ground of many of your favorite shows or magazines. Some of the latest inovations in Boat designs for fishability and boat safety come from the competitive fishing participants. Stating tackle innovations is stating the obvious.
In simple terms does competitive soccer in the City public fields put wear and tear on the grass......of course. This is undeniable, so does the person who takes his kids out to kick the ball liesurely have a beef?
SAWT does a excellent job in providing the people who choose to participate in a event that is Fish Responsible.
A little off topic and not a smoke screen but some Derbies are far more Non fish friendly than any Tournament. In the same sense do we disallow them? Many raise money for disadvantaged. To some it provides a oppurtunity for buddies to get together and have aannual get togethers and make Fish memories.
Fact is we are the hunter and gatherer and that tradition will continue as long as there is a prey. Yes the prey will suffer to some degree no matter what rules or legislation is instituted. We need to trust the system so that when its time to water the grass and fertilize they will so Everyone can enjoy fishing and soccer in Alberta

[Poorone]

I believe that some fish do end up dead no matter how careful the angler handles and releases a fish. But I do wonder about the mortality rates even "researched" ones. We have a large scale live example in Pine Coulee Reservoir. Think of how many walleye are caught there every day, week, or month. You have them caught in all temperatures from ice fishing in the winter to the hot days of summer. You also have people using all types of hardware and bait too. You have novices to "tournament" anglers there. I'm sure there are summer days where thousands of fish are caught and returned to the water (or supposed to be). Yet year after year, you can catch walleye after walleye till your arms almost fall off. I don't think there is any natural reproduction there, and they know how many walleye were stocked there. I may be wrong, but even with using a 1% or 2% mortality rate you would think that would be a dead lake by now. I am curious to hear any explanations on how that lake keeps on producing when so many fish are supposedly dying from being hooked and released.

[BeeGuy]

I believe that some fish do end up dead no matter how careful the angler handles and releases a fish. But I do wonder about the mortality rates even "researched" ones. We have a large scale live example in Pine Coulee Reservoir. Think of how many walleye are caught there every day, week, or month. You have them caught in all temperatures from ice fishing in the winter to the hot days of summer. You also have people using all types of hardware and bait too. You have novices to "tournament" anglers there. I'm sure there are summer days where thousands of fish are caught and returned to the water (or supposed to be). Yet year after year, you can catch walleye after walleye till your arms almost fall off. I don't think there is any natural reproduction there, and they know how many walleye were stocked there. I may be wrong, but even with using a 1% or 2% mortality rate you would think that would be a dead lake by now. I am curious to hear any explanations on how that lake keeps on producing when so many fish are supposedly dying from being hooked and released.

There is reproduction at PCR.

They stocked something like 3 million fry.

At ice off this year there was people commenting on large numbers of dead fish.

Too bad there isn't more money for fisheries research.

In fact, our beloved Fed has shuttered Canada's best freshwater research station, perhaps the best of its kind in human history.

[fishnfoo]

I have read the posts that have disagreed with my earlier post. None of the points that you have made actually argue agaist the points that I made, they are not mutually exclusive.

It is possible and likely that 1)tournament anglers have lead the way in tackle and boat design, 2) tournament anglers care about the resource, 3) tournaments are a great deal of fun and are a great way to socialize. That does not counter the fact that when you unleash a horde of highly skilled anglers, who are competing with each other, onto a body of water they are going to catch and handle an enormous number of fish and it is going to result in large numbers of dead fish. It also does not counter the fact that tournaments commercialize the resource so that relatively few benefit from the enterprise.

If your populations of fish can handle this pressure and you are OK with the commercial aspect, then an arguement can be made in favour of tournaments. However, in Alberta we have relatively few lakes and high angling pressure. That is why our bag limits are low and many lakes are on a tag system. I think that SRD has done a great job restoring our fisheries so that now we have some great catch rates (remenber that fishing sucked in the 80s and 90s). What I have a problem with, is that now that we have good fisheries, a select group of experts want to commercialize this resourse for their own benefit. Alberta's lakes get enough pressure with out tournaments. Our tax dollars go into management, regulation and enforcement of the resource, therefore, it makes more sense to eliminate the tournaments and derbies and in their place make more tags and/or larger bag limits available to the public. Is this not a more equitable use of this highly sought after resource?

Perhaps it would make more sense to hold tornaments in provinces or states that have more lakes and fewer anglers (like Saskatchewan and Manitoba) where the impact of the mortality associated with these competions will have less impact on the fishery.

[sheephunter]

We have to be careful using numbers like large and high as they are very subjective. I guess it depends on your definition of a large number of dead fish. I'd bet a high mortality at a well run and timed tournament these days would be about 25 fish. That would include instant and delayed mortality.

I haven't fished tournaments for about 10 years now but I see how they've benefited fishing and walleye in this province. Walleye fishing was actually awesome in the 80s and right till the mid 90s. Without the popularization of walleye and the profile they gained through tournaments, I'm not sure they would have received the management attention they did in the mid 90s.

[chubbdarter]

I have read the posts that have disagreed with my earlier post. None of the points that you have made actually argue agaist the points that I made, they are not mutually exclusive.

It is possible and likely that 1)tournament anglers have lead the way in tackle and boat design, 2) tournament anglers care about the resource, 3) tournaments are a great deal of fun and are a great way to socialize. That does not counter the fact that when you unleash a horde of highly skilled anglers, who are competing with each other, onto a body of water they are going to catch and handle an enormous number of fish and it is going to result in large numbers of dead fish. It also does not counter the fact that tournaments commercialize the resource so that relatively few benefit from the enterprise.

If your populations of fish can handle this pressure and you are OK with the commercial aspect, then an arguement can be made in favour of tournaments. However, in Alberta we have relatively few lakes and high angling pressure. That is why our bag limits are low and many lakes are on a tag system. I think that SRD has done a great job restoring our fisheries so that now we have some great catch rates (remenber that fishing sucked in the 80s and 90s). What I have a problem with, is that now that we have good fisheries, a select group of experts want to commercialize this resourse for their own benefit. Alberta's lakes get enough pressure with out tournaments. Our tax dollars go into management, regulation and enforcement of the resource, therefore, it makes more sense to eliminate the tournaments and derbies and in their place make more tags and/or larger bag limits available to the public. Is this not a more equitable use of this highly sought after resource?

Perhaps it would make more sense to hold tornaments in provinces or states that have more lakes and fewer anglers (like Saskatchewan and Manitoba) where the impact of the mortality associated with these competions will have less impact on the fishery.


with all due respect

every day huge numbers of unskilled anglers are unleashed upon our water ways. Fisherman who have no idea what fish ethics are after catching a fish. every day we have countless numbers of poachers who invade our waters. we have enviromental issues that are too many to count. Yet you have the desire to ruin others enjoyment to competively fish. YES there is some form of mortality...................There is some form of mortaility in the way You fish also but no one is asking you to stop fishing.
The directors of tournaments work closely with SRD and in the end some rules are stricter than the general regulations. The vast majority of the anglers in tourneys have a better concept of fish management than the public does simply because of their association with SRD.

May i also remind you, in the case of southern Alberta, Walleye fishing has never been better in the last 15 years. Many lakes are on the verge of trophy status imo and numbers of quality fish is way up.

All fishing results in negative fish impact, All fisherman are responsible for this negative impact. We can only lessen that negative impact with what good we can do to off set it. I see the directors of SAWT at fisheries meetings doing what they can to improve the fishery, i see very few others attend. Sawt also contributes to many worth while causes many that they dont want publicity for.

I understand your thinking that this is a money influenced event, that is far from the truth if you look at the economics of attending a tourny.

I appreciate your stand point but the facts i know allow me to take a different stand on this topic with full repect of your opinion.

I remind you of something, if you make a convincing stand that fishing is a barbaric sport of catch and release with needless mortailty.......You Sir have just impowered a huge special interest group that will ride your goat tails and it will end fishing as we know and love it.

[fishnfoo]

with all due respect

every day huge numbers of unskilled anglers are unleashed upon our water ways. Fisherman who have no idea what fish ethics are after catching a fish. every day we have countless numbers of poachers who invade our waters. we have enviromental issues that are too many to count. Yet you have the desire to ruin others enjoyment to competively fish. YES there is some form of mortality...................There is some form of mortaility in the way You fish also but no one is asking you to stop fishing.
The directors of tournaments work closely with SRD and in the end some rules are stricter than the general regulations. The vast majority of the anglers in tourneys have a better concept of fish management than the public does simply because of their association with SRD.

May i also remind you, in the case of southern Alberta, Walleye fishing has never been better in the last 15 years. Many lakes are on the verge of trophy status imo and numbers of quality fish is way up.

All fishing results in negative fish impact, All fisherman are responsible for this negative impact. We can only lessen that negative impact with what good we can do to off set it. I see the directors of SAWT at fisheries meetings doing what they can to improve the fishery, i see very few others attend. Sawt also contributes to many worth while causes many that they dont want publicity for.

I understand your thinking that this is a money influenced event, that is far from the truth if you look at the economics of attending a tourny.

I appreciate your stand point but the facts i know allow me to take a different stand on this topic with full repect of your opinion.

I remind you of something, if you make a convincing stand that fishing is a barbaric sport of catch and release with needless mortailty.......You Sir have just impowered a huge special interest group that will ride your goat tails and it will end fishing as we know and love it.

Chub,

with all due respect, I think you are basing your opinions on a number of assumptions that I think are faulty. First you are setting up a false dichotomy when you propose that one can either agree with competitive fishing or think that all fishing is barbaric and should be stopped. My objection is not with all fish mortality associated with any type of fishing, it is with the added pressure that comes with tournament fishing.

Another assumption that you are making is that because tournament fishers are more experienced they know more about the fishery and cause less damage than an average angler. I agree that they have more knowledge and better fish handling skills, but I also think that because they catch so many more fish than an average angler that they on average cause more mortality.

You also state that the fisheries are in great shape and I think you are implying that the walleye populations can take the extra pressure. I know for fact that our fisheries managers are constantly monitoring walleye population via test netting and that catch limits and tag allocations are determined by these results. Therefore, there is a limited number of fish that can be removed from a population. If there is a lot of C&R then the associated mortality will reduce the number of fish that can be sustainably harvested. It is a fact that a tournament on a lake will reduce the sustainable harvest unless the lake does not get a lot of pressure and has the excess capacity. This is not the caes in Alberta.

You can argue that our fisheries managers are underestimating the amount of havest/mortality that can be sustained. Given that that fish and game clubs and tournament organizers (who have powerful lobbies) fought with biologists in the 80s to get their own way and that this led to province wide collapse of walleye populations, and then the managers were left with the task of resurecting these populations. The managers did a great job and now we have some great fisheries (no, I am not a fisheries bio, I am just a very greatful angler). Given this history, I will place my trust in the SRD fisheries bios. They have proven that they know what they are doing and they say we have a very limited amount of sustainable harvest. I hope that this harvest goes to non-professional anglers. I have no problem if professional anlers want to fish recreationally. I do have a problem when a business cuts into my recreational opportunities.

I think that a much bigger issue is that of commercial fisheries. IMO these should not exist in Alberta. They cost more money to regulate than they actually generate (this should be enough reason by itself). The accidentally caught sport fish also cuts into angler's harvest. Very few individuals benefit from these fisheries. The province should either buy out or suspend these licences. The problem as always is powerful lobbies in small communities have big affects on local MLAs.

Finally, I appreciate the fact that this debate has remained very civillized. I know that this is a topic that is very dear to many of you and you strongly disagree with my point of view. But by remaining civil, hopefully we can drill down to the facts and gain some appreciation for the other persons point of view. I know I have. I know that you value the resource we just disagree on how it should be used.

[Who Da Fisherman]

Chub,

Finally, I appreciate the fact that this debate has remained very civillized. I know that this is a topic that is very dear to many of you and you strongly disagree with my point of view. But by remaining civil, hopefully we can drill down to the facts and gain some appreciation for the other persons point of view. I know I have. I know that you value the resource we just disagree on how it should be used.

This is why I have not joined the debate because we agree to disagree.
Cheers and tight lines all.
WDF

[Teamprotz]

At the Big River Walleye Classic this year ,we had the Gov Bioligist watching and was soooooo impressed with the numbers.Our recovery tank has a dozzen airation jets with water pulled from bottom of marina.We put fish in here and if lively , we instantly put right back into marina.Over the 2 day event we only lost 5 fish(limit for 1 person for one day) and they were cleaned up and went to someone needey,who loves fresh fish)Most tourny fisherman do there utmost best to keep there fish healthy, its part of the game.Saterday we had water temps over 70 and Sunday up to 5 ft waves, yet very low mortality because the fishermen care.Me and my wife do not even keep hardly any fish during the year, we want our grand kids to catch fish too.Specialy in Alta ,where you keep the biger ones and realese the little ones.Tournys give small communities like ours a much needed economic boost for a week, plus its a lota fun.If we can work together with the biolegest, fish police, communitie and fisherman, it can be a great success for all.(we luv tourny fishing:sHa_shakeshout:)
Check your regs , Sask limit is 4 / person ! :sHa_sarcasticlol: thats still very good. Everyone fails to bring up Nipawin tournaments where 50 8-10 inch fish are caught per a weighable fish. Those fish generally have the hooks ripped out and are thrown back. Guys will carry a big fish all day hoping for a bigger one , there are more fish killed there than they claim. Then look at 5 days of prefish, times 100 boats per day( est) . Lots. Volunteers handle the fish after the fact but aren't very gentle with them. See many floaters after weigh in , how many aren't seen?

[huntsfurfish]

Chub,

with all due respect, I think you are basing your opinions on a number of assumptions that I think are faulty. First you are setting up a false dichotomy when you propose that one can either agree with competitive fishing or think that all fishing is barbaric and should be stopped. My objection is not with all fish mortality associated with any type of fishing, it is with the added pressure that comes with tournament fishing.

And the lack of pressure on other lakes that they are not fishing on? Or maybe many would be fishing said lake anyway? Dont think I will quit fishing if there are no more tournaments.

Another assumption that you are making is that because tournament fishers are more experienced they know more about the fishery and cause less damage than an average angler. I agree that they have more knowledge and better fish handling skills, but I also think that because they catch so many more fish than an average angler that they on average cause more mortality.

Highly doubt that. Fishing mortality rates jump with lack of knowledge/handling skills.

You also state that the fisheries are in great shape and I think you are implying that the walleye populations can take the extra pressure. I know for fact that our fisheries managers are constantly monitoring walleye population via test netting and that catch limits and tag allocations are determined by these results. Therefore, there is a limited number of fish that can be removed from a population. If there is a lot of C&R then the associated mortality will reduce the number of fish that can be sustainably harvested. It is a fact that a tournament on a lake will reduce the sustainable harvest unless the lake does not get a lot of pressure and has the excess capacity. This is not the caes in Alberta.

Southern lakes are in great shape! And yes they are monitored. All these factors go into determining regs and what shape the reservoir is in. Netting, poaching it is all part of the equation. Guess you should know that tournament anglers are just fishermen/women. They will be fishing regardless.


You can argue that our fisheries managers are underestimating the amount of havest/mortality that can be sustained. Given that that fish and game clubs and tournament organizers (who have powerful lobbies) fought with biologists in the 80s to get their own way and that this led to province wide collapse of walleye populations, and then the managers were left with the task of resurecting these populations. The managers did a great job and now we have some great fisheries (no, I am not a fisheries bio, I am just a very greatful angler). Given this history, I will place my trust in the SRD fisheries bios. They have proven that they know what they are doing and they say we have a very limited amount of sustainable harvest. I hope that this harvest goes to non-professional anglers. I have no problem if professional anlers want to fish recreationally. I do have a problem when a business cuts into my recreational opportunities.

Where did you get that idea from? Tournaments had very little to do with that(like nothing)! Try a 16" size limit (caught before they could spawn) and fairly liberal limits lead to the decline/crash of walleye numbers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Almost all tournament anglers in AB are working stiffs, there might be a handfull 3-10 Tournament anglers making a living in the fishing field. And that is largely through sponsors.

It is not a business! The only difference between u and I is I like to compete while fishing and you do not!

I think that a much bigger issue is that of commercial fisheries. IMO these should not exist in Alberta. They cost more money to regulate than they actually generate (this should be enough reason by itself). The accidentally caught sport fish also cuts into angler's harvest. Very few individuals benefit from these fisheries. The province should either buy out or suspend these licences. The problem as always is powerful lobbies in small communities have big affects on local MLAs.

Again we disagree. I believe it should be closely monitored and enforced but I believe it is a good way to help steer the biomass. Talk with some bios before you get to critical. If it benefits a few and helps with the water body by removing biomass that is a good thing all around!!!

Finally, I appreciate the fact that this debate has remained very civillized. I know that this is a topic that is very dear to many of you and you strongly disagree with my point of view. But by remaining civil, hopefully we can drill down to the facts and gain some appreciation for the other persons point of view. I know I have. I know that you value the resource we just disagree on how it should be used.

I do agree with your last paragraph:)

[Black Stim]

[QUOTE=huntsfurfish;Highly doubt that. Fishing mortality rates jump with lack of knowledge/handling skills.

mortality of fish resulting from mishandling, while important, is only one small factor in mortality. Other factors significantly overwhelm proper fish handling when extremely high catch rates are present in many circumstances. Depth and temperature are among the many.

Take an average angler. Walleye is likely only an incidental catch, as they do not possess the specialized equipment and knowledge to catch Walleye in many situations(excepting Pine Coulee maybe). Catching 5 Walleye in a day would be a significant feat for such an angler. Even with a mortality rate of 20%, that's one dead Walleye for the inexperienced guy. At 40% (pretty high, that's 2 deads)

An experienced angler is excellent at capturing Walleye. 50 Walleye landed in a day is certainly not out of the question, more is well within reach. At a mortality rate of 5%, that's 2.5 dead Walleye.

Who has the larger impact? Care and attention to proper release techniques still can't save Walleye caught in deep water suffering from expanded swim bladders. They're dead- they (and the angler) just don't know it yet, and won't be around to see it. Watching the fish swim away doesn't guarantee survival.

"Again we disagree. I believe it should be closely monitored and enforced but I believe it is a good way to help steer the biomass. Talk with some bios before you get to critical. If it benefits a few and helps with the water body by removing biomass that is a good thing all around!!!"

I think it would be pretty arrogant for an SRD bio to suggest commercial fisheries are so well understood that they "steer the biomass". Whitefish and Walleye aren't competing for the same resources. Also not sure "overpopulation" of Whitefish is a real problem limiting Walleye fisheries? Most attempts by humans to steer biomass of fish populations have put it in the ditch, or off a cliff.

[huntsfurfish]

QUOTE=Black Stim;1510305]mortality of fish resulting from mishandling, while important, is only one small factor in mortality. Other factors significantly overwhelm proper fish handling when extremely high catch rates are present in many circumstances. Depth and temperature are among the many.[/I]


You cant be serious. Fish handling is the one of the most signifcant factor in mortality rates if not the most significant! Depth and temp are factors, but SAWT is limited to cool water fishing and tournament anglers are encouraged to fish shallow.


Take an average angler. Walleye is likely only an incidental catch, as they do not possess the specialized equipment and knowledge to catch Walleye in many situations(excepting Pine Coulee maybe). Catching 5 Walleye in a day would be a significant feat for such an angler. Even with a mortality rate of 20%, that's one dead Walleye for the inexperienced guy. At 40% (pretty high, that's 2 deads)

Yup, some dont catch many and some catch alot, it might surprise you to see how proficient some can get. But some do catch alot and its not pretty. And most do not understand the deepwater concept either.


An experienced angler is excellent at capturing Walleye. 50 Walleye landed in a day is certainly not out of the question, more is well within reach. At a mortality rate of 5%, that's 2.5 dead Walleye.

Fish released immediately likely do not have 5% mortality rate and again poor handling will be significantly higher!

Who has the larger impact? Care and attention to proper release techniques still can't save Walleye caught in deep water suffering from expanded swim bladders. They're dead- they (and the angler) just don't know it yet, and won't be around to see it. Watching the fish swim away doesn't guarantee survival.

SAWT recomends shallow water fishing and almost all comply, does the average angler? I think not.

"Again we disagree. I believe it should be closely monitored and enforced but I believe it is a good way to help steer the biomass. Talk with some bios before you get to critical. If it benefits a few and helps with the water body by removing biomass that is a good thing all around!!!"

I think it would be pretty arrogant for an SRD bio to suggest commercial fisheries are so well understood that they "steer the biomass". Whitefish and Walleye aren't competing for the same resources. Also not sure "overpopulation" of Whitefish is a real problem limiting Walleye fisheries? Most attempts by humans to steer biomass of fish populations have put it in the ditch, or off a cliff.

A reservoir choked by whitefish does little to help walleye/pike fishery. Removal of some biomass is helpful, think about it or talk to bios!

[Black Stim]

I'd be interested to learn of a single example of a fishery so choked by whitefish that the walleye and pike are suffering and would benefit from removal of a preferred prey.

The unintended consequence associated with commercial netting (often conducted to target large concentrations of whitefish on spawning grounds) is bycatch of very large pike and Walleye (larger than average for a given waterbody). Spawning sized whitefish harvested by large mesh gill nets selects for individuals of a size that can only be consumed by the largest pike and walleye. 5" mesh is common, and is intended to harvest larger whitefish. Only the largest pike and walleye can eat them. This activity selects against the largest individuals in the population.

Fish handling IS important, but not the biggest factor in mortality, not even close. It's a matter of scale and effect. Let's try math again:

Let's take 100 average guys fishing for walleye. 1 fish every 4 hours is pretty generous for a guy not targeting walleye, but hoping to catch anything. It's also pretty unlikely they're fishing in water deep enough to catch anything other than an incidental walleye. If that group fishes for 8 hours, they would catch 100 anglers x 0.25 fish per hour x 8 hours = 200 fish caught. Let's assume they are much worse at handling fish than experienced folks and unintentionally kill 25% of their catch with poor handling (pretty liberal, and not very realistic) . 50 fish would die.

Let's take 100 experienced folks fishing the same day, water temps, depth, etc. Because of very specialized knowledge of where Walleye live (they live in predictable places), these folks are much better at catching Walleye. I've seen the experienced guys easily outfish the average guy 10:1, mostly because they know where to look, and how to catch them. That's a catch rate of 2.5 fish per hour on the same waterbody (not at all unrealistic).
So, 100 anglers x 2.5 fish per hour x 8 hours fishing = 2000 fish caught. Assuming they are much better in handling fish, it's reasonable to think their C&R survival is higher. 5% is a reasonable estimate especially considering the vasty majority use bait.

At 5% mortality (5X better at releasing fish than average Joe, bit of a stretch, but..) that means 2000 fish x 5% is 100 deads. (Twice the number of the average guy).

The higher catch rate even combined with much better handling techniques (even 5X better), still results in more deads. Good handling techniques are overwhelmed by the sheer effort and effectiveness of good anglers.

[BeeGuy]

There's kind of an interesting point here.

If an unskilled angler with poor release technique has a mortality rate of 25%, and a skilled angler with excellent skills (and ethics) has a mortality rate of 5%, but catches 5x more fish, who has the greater impact on the fishery?

[huntsfurfish]

I'd be interested to learn of a single example of a fishery so choked by whitefish that the walleye and pike are suffering and would benefit from removal of a preferred prey.

Mature whitefish are to large to be a preferred prey. A water body will only support so many pounds of biomass. Removal of some whitefish can be good for that water body.

The unintended consequence associated with commercial netting (often conducted to target large concentrations of whitefish on spawning grounds) is bycatch of very large pike and Walleye (larger than average for a given waterbody). Spawning sized whitefish harvested by large mesh gill nets selects for individuals of a size that can only be consumed by the largest pike and walleye. 5" mesh is common, and is intended to harvest larger whitefish. Only the largest pike and walleye can eat them. This activity selects against the largest individuals in the population.

It needs to be monitored more closely and enforced a little better. There are other ways as well. But that can be for another thread.

Fish handling IS important, but not the biggest factor in mortality, not even close. It's a matter of scale and effect. Let's try math again:

Yikes

Let's take 100 average guys fishing for walleye. 1 fish every 4 hours is pretty generous for a guy not targeting walleye, but hoping to catch anything. It's also pretty unlikely they're fishing in water deep enough to catch anything other than an incidental walleye. If that group fishes for 8 hours, they would catch 100 anglers x 0.25 fish per hour x 8 hours = 200 fish caught. Let's assume they are much worse at handling fish than experienced folks and unintentionally kill 25% of their catch with poor handling (pretty liberal, and not very realistic) . 50 fish would die.

What part of the country are you talking:). Lots of average fishermen target walleye and are pretty successfull at it. Your examples can be made to go in any direction:)

Let's take 100 experienced folks fishing the same day, water temps, depth, etc. Because of very specialized knowledge of where Walleye live (they live in predictable places), these folks are much better at catching Walleye. I've seen the experienced guys easily outfish the average guy 10:1, mostly because they know where to look, and how to catch them. That's a catch rate of 2.5 fish per hour on the same waterbody (not at all unrealistic).
So, 100 anglers x 2.5 fish per hour x 8 hours fishing = 2000 fish caught. Assuming they are much better in handling fish, it's reasonable to think their C&R survival is higher. 5% is a reasonable estimate especially considering the vasty majority use bait.

At 5% mortality (5X better at releasing fish than average Joe, bit of a stretch, but..) that means 2000 fish x 5% is 100 deads. (Twice the number of the average guy).

Cmon.

The higher catch rate even combined with much better handling techniques (even 5X better), still results in more deads. Good handling techniques are overwhelmed by the sheer effort and effectiveness of good anglers.

:) Thats assuming all your non tournament anglers are not good at catchin.

[sheephunter]

There's kind of an interesting point here.

If an unskilled angler with poor release technique has a mortality rate of 25%, and a skilled angler with excellent skills (and ethics) has a mortality rate of 5%, but catches 5x more fish, who has the greater impact on the fishery?

I've said this a couple times in this thread but people keep taking it out of context. The 5% was a high mortality for fish caught, held in a livewell and taken to the weigh scale. I'm kind of sorry I brought it up but I thought it would bring some context to tournament mortality....apparently not. I suspect immediate release mortality is well below 1%.

[huntsfurfish]

There's kind of an interesting point here.

If an unskilled angler with poor release technique has a mortality rate of 25%, and a skilled angler with excellent skills (and ethics) has a mortality rate of 5%, but catches 5x more fish, who has the greater impact on the fishery?

Doesnt have to be an unskilled angler. See fair amount of skilled anglers with poor fish handling skills. Boat and shore.

[huntsfurfish]

I've said this a couple times in this thread but people keep taking it out of context. The 5% was a high mortality for fish caught, held in a livewell and taken to the weigh scale. I'm kind of sorry I brought it up but I thought it would bring some context to tournament mortality....apparently not. I suspect immediate release mortality is well below 1%.

Thanks TJ.

[BeeGuy]

There's kind of an interesting point here.

If an unskilled angler with poor release technique has a mortality rate of 25%, and a skilled angler with excellent skills (and ethics) has a mortality rate of 5%, but catches 5x more fish, who has the greater impact on the fishery?

I've said this a couple times in this thread but people keep taking it out of context. The 5% was a high mortality for fish caught, held in a livewell and taken to the weigh scale. I'm kind of sorry I brought it up but I thought it would bring some context to tournament mortality....apparently not. I suspect immediate release mortality is well below 1%.

Doesnt have to be an unskilled angler. See fair amount of skilled anglers with poor fish handling skills. Boat and shore.

How about this then:

If an unskilled angler with poor release technique has a mortality rate of 10%, and a skilled angler with excellent skills (and ethics) has a mortality rate of 2%, but catches 5x more fish, who has the greater impact on the fishery?

[huntsfurfish]

How about this then:

If an unskilled angler with poor release technique has a mortality rate of 10%, and a skilled angler with excellent skills (and ethics) has a mortality rate of 2%, but catches 5x more fish, who has the greater impact on the fishery?

or how about this then:)

[fishnfoo]

I think you tournament anglers are in denial about the impact that you are having on the walleye populations in the lakes where the competions are held.

Average fishermen generally have a low skill level. Most of the people on this forum are highly skilled anglers. Most of us have lots of tackle, boats, exepensive sonars and loads of experience. Many of us can go and catch a boat load of fish when the average guy who gets out once or twice a year will get skunked. I would say all tournament anglers are highly skilled. However that does not mean that all non-tornament have a low skill level. But, most peole who are out on the lake have a much lower skill level.

The proplem arises when you get a high concentration of these highly skilled anglers on one body of water and they fish the hell out of it. This creates increased mortality. If these anglers were fishing on a variety of lakes and were not competing, the impact would be much reduced. This reduced impact would result in more opportunity for recreational anglers both those with with high and low skill level.

[npauls]

I think you tournament anglers are in denial about the impact that you are having on the walleye populations in the lakes where the competions are held.

Average fishermen generally have a low skill level. Most of the people on this forum are highly skilled anglers. Most of us have lots of tackle, boats, exepensive sonars and loads of experience. Many of us can go and catch a boat load of fish when the average guy who gets out once or twice a year will get skunked. I would say all tournament anglers are highly skilled. However that does not mean that all non-tornament have a low skill level. But, most peole who are out on the lake have a much lower skill level.

The proplem arises when you get a high concentration of these highly skilled anglers on one body of water and they fish the hell out of it. This creates increased mortality. If these anglers were fishing on a variety of lakes and were not competing, the impact would be much reduced. This reduced impact would result in more opportunity for recreational anglers both those with with high and low skill level.

How would not competing change anything with these anglers? They are still going to be on a lake catching as many fish as possible. So the outcome is going to be the same no matter the day they are on the water.

I am a tournament angler and fish the same way whether I am fishing a tournament or not. Just because there isn't a tournament to be at doesn't mean I just sit at home waiting for another tourney. I head out whenever possible and try to work on skills that are going to help me at my next tournament.

[DiabeticKripple]

Does it really matter how the tournaments affect the lake?

If say 50 fish die per tournament, out of thousands and thousands of fish in that water body, you think it can't handle it? If the lake couldn't handle tournaments and the "impact" they have on the water body, then SRD wouldn't allow the tournaments to happen.

We can debate this over and over, but in the end we need to let SRD control everything. They try their hardest to keep our fisheries protected, and I think they have been doing a pretty good job lately.

Also, this thread will continue on about one guys opinion vs. the other guys opinion. In a couple days this thread will be forgotten and everyone will (hopefully) move on.

[pickrel pat]

Does it really matter how the tournaments affect the lake?

If say 50 fish die per tournament, out of thousands and thousands of fish in that water body, you think it can't handle it? If the lake couldn't handle tournaments and the "impact" they have on the water body, then SRD wouldn't allow the tournaments to happen.

We can debate this over and over, but in the end we need to let SRD control everything. They try their hardest to keep our fisheries protected, and I think they have been doing a pretty good job lately.

Also, this thread will continue on about one guys opinion vs. the other guys opinion. In a couple days this thread will be forgotten and everyone will (hopefully) move on.

this makes the most sense so far.

[huntsfurfish]

I think you tournament anglers are in denial about the impact that you are having on the walleye populations in the lakes where the competions are held.



Average fishermen generally have a low skill level. Most of the people on this forum are highly skilled anglers. Most of us have lots of tackle, boats, exepensive sonars and loads of experience. Many of us can go and catch a boat load of fish when the average guy who gets out once or twice a year will get skunked. I would say all tournament anglers are highly skilled. However that does not mean that all non-tornament have a low skill level. But, most peole who are out on the lake have a much lower skill level.

Both tournment anglers and non tournament anglers have varied skill levels.


The proplem arises when you get a high concentration of these highly skilled anglers on one body of water and they fish the hell out of it. This creates increased mortality. If these anglers were fishing on a variety of lakes and were not competing, the impact would be much reduced. This reduced impact would result in more opportunity for recreational anglers both those with with high and low skill level.

By your reasoning maybe we should disallow boats for fishing. Boat fishermen likely impact the fishing more than shore fishermen:)
You have the same opportunity. We are anglers too.

It is closely monitored if the impact is great enough tournaments/CFE's will not issued. And it is highly unlikely tournament fishing is the whole problem. You appear to be looking for a group to blame for your percieved "fishing" issues in AB. Yes fish die as a result of tournaments and fish die from sport fishing. From your comment a while back on walleye collapse back in the 80's shows you are looking for a scape goat. Again tournaments had little to nothing to do with that collapse. Tournaments (at least down South(SAWT)) are only one small part of the whole picture.

[BeeGuy]

It is closely monitored if the impact is great enough tournaments/CFE's will not issued. And it is highly unlikely tournament fishing is the whole problem. You appear to be looking for a group to blame for your percieved "fishing" issues in AB. Yes fish die as a result of tournaments and fish die from sport fishing. From your comment a while back on walleye collapse back in the 80's shows you are looking for a scape goat. Again tournaments had little to nothing to do with that collapse. Tournaments (at least down South(SAWT)) are only one small part of the whole picture.

well said

[chubbdarter]

Chub,

with all due respect, I think you are basing your opinions on a number of assumptions that I think are faulty. First you are setting up a false dichotomy when you propose that one can either agree with competitive fishing or think that all fishing is barbaric and should be stopped. My objection is not with all fish mortality associated with any type of fishing, it is with the added pressure that comes with tournament fishing.

Another assumption that you are making is that because tournament fishers are more experienced they know more about the fishery and cause less damage than an average angler. I agree that they have more knowledge and better fish handling skills, but I also think that because they catch so many more fish than an average angler that they on average cause more mortality.

You also state that the fisheries are in great shape and I think you are implying that the walleye populations can take the extra pressure. I know for fact that our fisheries managers are constantly monitoring walleye population via test netting and that catch limits and tag allocations are determined by these results. Therefore, there is a limited number of fish that can be removed from a population. If there is a lot of C&R then the associated mortality will reduce the number of fish that can be sustainably harvested. It is a fact that a tournament on a lake will reduce the sustainable harvest unless the lake does not get a lot of pressure and has the excess capacity. This is not the caes in Alberta.

You can argue that our fisheries managers are underestimating the amount of havest/mortality that can be sustained. Given that that fish and game clubs and tournament organizers (who have powerful lobbies) fought with biologists in the 80s to get their own way and that this led to province wide collapse of walleye populations, and then the managers were left with the task of resurecting these populations. The managers did a great job and now we have some great fisheries (no, I am not a fisheries bio, I am just a very greatful angler). Given this history, I will place my trust in the SRD fisheries bios. They have proven that they know what they are doing and they say we have a very limited amount of sustainable harvest. I hope that this harvest goes to non-professional anglers. I have no problem if professional anlers want to fish recreationally. I do have a problem when a business cuts into my recreational opportunities.

I think that a much bigger issue is that of commercial fisheries. IMO these should not exist in Alberta. They cost more money to regulate than they actually generate (this should be enough reason by itself). The accidentally caught sport fish also cuts into angler's harvest. Very few individuals benefit from these fisheries. The province should either buy out or suspend these licences. The problem as always is powerful lobbies in small communities have big affects on local MLAs.

Finally, I appreciate the fact that this debate has remained very civillized. I know that this is a topic that is very dear to many of you and you strongly disagree with my point of view. But by remaining civil, hopefully we can drill down to the facts and gain some appreciation for the other persons point of view. I know I have. I know that you value the resource we just disagree on how it should be used.


I apologize for not answering each paragraph , please do not take that as me not repsecting your comments. Fished alot this past 3 days and once again i reaffirmed were my concern lies. Its definitely not with tournament anglers. Fished 3 southern lakes 1 of which is on the SAWT circuit. 2 of these lakes i consider near trophy status. Poaching is huge and appears to be becoming a growing cancer. I will never deny tournament anglers do increase the chance of fish mortality..... AS ANGLERS WE ALL DO. I just feel its unfair to pick on a group that does so much to help the angling public and not address the real problem of fish mortailty from poaching.
I guess the real equation should be

X numbers of poachers killing fish 365 days a year
or
X numbers of tournament anglers C@R fishing a few days of the year

Not trying to lessen your concern, your opinion and facts are well presented. But if my boat is taking on water, i will always try to plug the biggest hole first. I believe the fishery in southern AB can handle the incidental cases of fish mortality but the poaching factor is definitly harmful to the degree it can kill a lake.. Poaching is also impossible to manage or factor in with realistic numbers, unlike a tournament which is highly regulated

Thanks, This isnt a post to derail your thread but a post to represent my point

[trophyboy]

NEWSFLASH EINSTEINS- "Fishing causes fish mortality". Perhaps we should all just go for an outright ban of all fishing.

The stupidity on this board is beyond ridiculous and has once again reached an all time low!:sHa_sarcasticlol:

[Cal]

I dunno about the mortality rates but just doing the math it seems like there has to be some impact. For the anglers cup up here 150 boats with two guys to a boat are allowed to catch two fish per angler (still not exactly sure how or why they are allowed to keep more than the regular limit) for two days. So if everyone weighs in their limit a total of 1200 fish are caught and transported to the weigh in, add to that the amount of fish released plus the amount caught in practice (lots of guys fish hard the whole week before) and then multiply it by the number of tournaments that take place on Slave. That is a huge amount of pressure added to the already heavy fishing pressure.

[sheephunter]

How do you figure they are catching more than their limit?

At 3% mortality, that would add up to 36 dead fish. Some yes, huge, guess that's subjective.

[Lefty-Canuck]

How do you figure they are catching more than their limit?


If I am reading the regs correctly the limit per angler is one fish over 43cm. Cal is likely getting at why could tournament anglers keep 2 per angler during the tournament.

LC

[wellpastcold]

I dunno about the mortality rates but just doing the math it seems like there has to be some impact. For the anglers cup up here 150 boats with two guys to a boat are allowed to catch two fish per angler (still not exactly sure how or why they are allowed to keep more than the regular limit) for two days. So if everyone weighs in their limit a total of 1200 fish are caught and transported to the weigh in, add to that the amount of fish released plus the amount caught in practice (lots of guys fish hard the whole week before) and then multiply it by the number of tournaments that take place on Slave. That is a huge amount of pressure added to the already heavy fishing pressure.

This quote is why an issue like this will never be discussed with any degree of sanity. First of all, there were less than 100 boats at that tournament. Secondly you should do some research before gracing us with your opinion. The reason 4 fish are weighed in is there are a minimum of 2 weigh ins per day. The regulations do not refer to how many you catch in a day, they refer to the # in possession. If you weigh your fish in and they are releasable, they are no longer in your possession. If they are not releasable you are finished fishing for the day. Here is some math for you, more weigh ins equals less time in livewell. That is a good thing isn't it? When people who have no clue put forward incorrect information it absolutely eliminates the possibility of reasoned discussion.

[sheephunter]

If I am reading the regs correctly the limit per angler is one fish over 43cm. Cal is likely getting at why could tournament anglers keep 2 per angler during the tournament.

LC

They don't keep them, they are released. They never have more than their limit in their boat and they don't retain them elsewhere after the fish are weighed.

[Lefty-Canuck]

They don't keep them, they are released. They never have more than their limit in their boat and they don't retain them elsewhere after the fish are weighed.

Makes more sense now, thanks for clarifying.

LC

[cube]

with all due respect

I see the directors of SAWT at fisheries meetings doing what they can to improve the fishery, I see very few others attend.

I was wondering if you could tell which page of the regs those meetings are advertized. I have never seen them there but that could just be me. I have also never seen them advertized or posted where licences are sold. I have never been called, emailed, or sent an invitation about any meetings in Alberta. Even though I have had a licence and WIN card for a long time now and hence, they certainly have my contact info.

I looked in the minutes of the "Alberta Fisheries Management Round Table" April 14 2012 where indeed this very question of CFE's were being discussed, and it specifically said "It is felt that the Round Table Forum is not the place to ask about taking allocation from the general public" it goes onto say "There are concerns that the public may not understand the complexity of the CFE issue..." etc. In essence it does not really sound like they want the public to attend or be heard from.

Too sum it up while I do not know for a fact who was invited to the round table I would bet that CFE organizers were/are and given the public does not appear to be your comment about few others showing up would be a little unfair.


Just my 2 cents

[cube]

They don't keep them, they are released. They never have more than their limit in their boat and they don't retain them elsewhere after the fish are weighed.

Just wanted to clarify this point In the meeting notes of the "Alberta Fisheries Management Round Table" April 14, 2012

"Comment: there are advantages to registering a CFE. If anglers are not registered they are required to follow the regulations and have 1 fish in possession, for example. If registered, anglers may be able to have 2 fish in possession."


I don't know if indeed any tournaments out there are taking advantage of this or not but they certainly can access special rules from the sounds of it.

I must say again that getting to see the data (Thanks again Levy) has certainly put me more at ease. I used to be of a confirmed anti-tournament mind set but now as long as the tournaments are held and monitored in the cold water period I don't have much of an issue with them. I also applaud the organizers and participants of these CFE's for making these vital changes.