Alberta limits, size slot, and others...

[Graffy91]

Hey AO,

Just a little food for thought here, little bit of Christmas Day reading for ya...


So I recently compiled up a few ideas on how Alberta could better, and even compete with rival waters in nearby provinces such as Saskatchewan for instance.

I always used to go to Saskatchewan ever since I was little as my dad had our boat stored at my grandmas in Saskatoon and that was where he grew up fishing. So I have fished numerous lakes within the province.
Only recently in the last 2 years have I really intensively fished Alberta, and I really have noticed a terribly managed fishery system.

All of our lakes have some form of stunted fish, population issues, extreme poaching, and just overall damage due from poor management in my opinion.

For instance a lake like Fawcett Lake which has stunted pike with huge heads, and no bellies, walleye that don't exceed 35cm, is classified in a population decrease in fish. They changed their limits from 3 Walleye of 43 cm, to 3 walleye over 50cm... Which makes absolutely no sense in my eyes.

If there is a population issue, why raise the size slot limit to 50cm? When its a known fact that walleye over 50cm are the spawners... Hence my argument, If there is a population decrease and they raise the size slot, people take away the spawners, from a lake that is already down the drain, the damage done is irreversible.


Now a lake like Pigeon for instance, has a pike retention limit of 1 over 100cm. Which makes you wonder, they have an overflow of walleye in that lake and the lake already has no food as it is. Who is willing to keep a pike over 100cm anyways, they taste terrible and a 100cm pike is something you don't keep to eat IMO.

Calling Lake, has a horrible bio-mass problem with WAY too many walleye. What I have read would apparently solve the problem is change the limit to 3, UNDER 50cm. If that works out, you would realistically solve a little bit of the bio-mass problem by removing all the stunted half pound walleyes that would normally weigh a good 2-3lbs anywhere else by doing this would cause the bait fish to keep reproducing and make the older, starving spawners the chance to GROW into normal, healthy fish.


When I grew up, I spent numerous times at Tobin Lake and I could not believe the insane size, and quantity of the fish there. I couldn't wrap my head around the size slot limits when I was say, 10-14 years old. Always getting mad at my pops for releasing my 70cm walleyes, or my 100cm pikes. But realistically people, Tobin Lake is one of the worlds healthiest, and best lakes within Canada. The lake has constant 20+ pike, and 10+ pound walleye.

All because of proper fishing management and proper size slot retention.


Mind you, most of your arguments are going to be on fishing pressure and population, but really people... When you look at some of Alberta's regs you really gotta pull you're hair out because its absurd...


I guess this is more of a rant than anything, or an opinion but Wabamun is a prime example of a closed fishery, which over the years has blossomed into a trophy northern lake an hour within the city.


Alberta really should look into putting stricter size slots and more sensible limits on fish. I don't want to catch constant 2lb walleye with sunken heads and stunted pike every lake within 2 hours from Edmonton...


Merry Christmas to all, and a happy holidays and I hope you are all safe and that no one drinks and drives.

[JohnnyD]

Graffy,

Im on board with what your saying. One problem with opening a slot size on lakes within 1.5 hours of Edmonton is likely, they would be cleaned out in no time. Imagine if Pigeon lake had a 3 walleye limit. Just think of all the days in the summer that there is 20 plus boats anchored at the provincial park. I believe we could make further use of special harvest tags in more situations. Also having more conservation officers or f&w officers making a presence would help with poaching and allow more angler education. I have been enjoying Pigeon lake for 16 years, and spent all my summers out here when I was growing up. In all that time I have seen a conservation officer one time. Pretty weak in my eyes especially when known poaching rings have been busted and the illegal harvest is related to this lake.

As others have mentioned before a course to obtain an angling license similar to a hunting course should be introduced. It could cover responsible harvest, understanding that large fish are breeders, explanation of various tackle (including how to properly pinch down the barb), casting techniques, fish handling and release, and further information related to angling.

[huntsfurfish]

:) Gonna try and stay out of this one.

[Pikebreath]

Graffy,

Some good points to ponder,,,,

The current scheme of angling regs we have here in Alberta were implemented in the mid to late 90's, becuz many fisheries in the province were collapsed or vulnerable. From the mid 80's to mid 90's, average catch rates for walleye and pike for any size of fish in many accessible Alberta lakes were pathetic to say the least.

Managers tried slot limits on some test lakes which put simply did not work,,, poor angler compliance was part of the problem as was the fact angling pressure is high enough that very few fish made it through the slot to become "protected spawners". Slot limits seem to work much better with moderate angling pressure (like in Saskatchewan).

Anyways back to the mid 90's, it was apparent that recovery was the first order of business and slots in Alberta likely would not accomplish that end. For that reason, we saw significant reductions in catch limits (including zero retention for many walleye populations) and minimum size limits where some harvest was to be allowed. The idea behind the minimum size limit is to allow the fish to spawn at least once before being harvested.

I wouldn't go so far as to say our fisheries have been mismanaged in so far as the objective was to restore fish populations. The current regs have worked in allowing many populations to recover and angling catch rates are significantly higher now that they were 15 years ago. Essentially we now have fisheries that are managed for quantity not quality.

I do agree that it is certainly time to re-examine this policy and we need to go the next step of trying to find some balance in our fisheries which allows more larger fish to survive which would improve angling quality as well.

Slot limits and harvest restrictions on larger fish do need to be looked at. However given Alberta's high angling pressure, we also must insure that enough fish can make through the slot sizes to become larger fish. I suspect this means further harvest restrictions within the slot sizes as well. The walleye tag system for selected lakes is attempt to do so.

Perhaps we need to look at "yearly or seasonal limits" for anglers where you can only harvest "x" number of a certain size and species per year. Expanded use of the tag system could accomplish this. Hunters have long accepted they need a tag to harvest a deer and there are limits on the number of tags / deer they can purchase / harvest in a year. Maybe it is time to adopt a similar approach to fisheries management.

Merry Christmas everyone!!

[blackburbot]

The regs need to be changed. But the government seems slow to react to the problem. It seems that they are more re-active compared to pro-active. One of the problems is that they are looking at lakes on an individual basis. For example, if Calling lake walleye are suffering they adjust the limits on that lake to help it out, but seem to forget that people still want fish to eat. So, like everybody else, I headed out to Fawcett or Rock Island to catch legal fish. So the problems just transfer to that lake. Another problem is the huge population to lake ratio. The list could go on and on. And all us "Arm Chair Quarterbacks" including myself, seem to have the perfect solution to the situation. Wheter it be stop all commercial(netting) fishing, to native harvesting, to more enforcement, to complete catch and release province wide for a couple years. And of course we alway compare each situation we encounter to the "world's best". My suggestion would be to contact Fish and Wildlife (sustainable resources) and read up on their suggestions and reports and contact the area managers and find out about what they have in-line for new changes and offer to help out with projects in the area. And yes, I contacted them already. And recieved information about their new proposals for the areas that I frequent often

[Graffy91]

Graffy,

Im on board with what your saying. One problem with opening a slot size on lakes within 1.5 hours of Edmonton is likely, they would be cleaned out in no time. Imagine if Pigeon lake had a 3 walleye limit. Just think of all the days in the summer that there is 20 plus boats anchored at the provincial park. I believe we could make further use of special harvest tags in more situations. Also having more conservation officers or f&w officers making a presence would help with poaching and allow more angler education. I have been enjoying Pigeon lake for 16 years, and spent all my summers out here when I was growing up. In all that time I have seen a conservation officer one time. Pretty weak in my eyes especially when known poaching rings have been busted and the illegal harvest is related to this lake.

As others have mentioned before a course to obtain an angling license similar to a hunting course should be introduced. It could cover responsible harvest, understanding that large fish are breeders, explanation of various tackle (including how to properly pinch down the barb), casting techniques, fish handling and release, and further information related to angling.

I'm not saying for every lake open up a 3 limit, but they do need to thin out the population because there is too many fish and not enough food.

You can't go to any lake within 2 hours from Edmonton and get a 8+lb walleye, its a shame.

[Bhflyfisher]

I'm not saying for every lake open up a 3 limit, but they do need to thin out the population because there is too many fish and not enough food.

You can't go to any lake within 2 hours from Edmonton and get a 8+lb walleye, its a shame.

I think the problem with that, is because its so close to a million people (+/-) population, people will abuse the possession limits. Its something that will change but it will take time. Alberta is still caught in this "wackem and stackem" mindset, that the fisheries will be in a vice grip for another couple of decades.

How many fish does someone actually need in their freezers?

[pelada trochu]

Great points and suggestions guys. I certainly am in favor of improving our fisheries. One thing we can do is stop bragging at what lake we caught x fish. Put up a pic but keep the lake to yourself. This keeps poachers and fish pressure down.

Now i think a real good idea is this...

Move to a short harvest season. Eg. 3 walleye limit at pigeon first week of july. Then move that harvest to gull for the following week. Etc. bring it around to each lake for select weeks a few times per year but also keep it moving so i could travel that week somewhere and keep if i really am an enthusiast. Also move the species too. Eg pike only this week then walleye etc.

We truly cant support the province on what we,have for lakes.

Move to a ground up program to create natural spawning grounds. Have government purchase and protect more areas as developers are taking over.

Stop shocking lakes with stocking programs that create stunted fish. Id much rather keep a lake closed and fish healthy populations of pristine lake waters than a polluted city pond filled with so many fish they would starve if we didnt catch them immediately.

Xxxx lake is one of these disasters with massive walleye stocking that kills any minnow fry from surviving due to the zillion semi-mature walleye destroying the new year class. The whites population is crashing. The whites are starving. The pike young are non existent but there is a ton of immature walleye there. Eventually the pike year class will die out. The whites will be like the perch impossible to find and everyone will think cool walleye lake. Never mind the massive development around the lake and backfill of low grassy areas needed for spawn. They destroyed the lake outlet and killed the spawn area for pike and now want to turn it to a spillway to completely eliminate spawn. Then i suppose it justifies their stocking program.


Rant...

Just build up the foundation and the house will stand on its own. Stop putting more stucko on to hide the cracks!

[DiabeticKripple]

didnt know we had so many fisheries biologists on this board....

this province has come a long way in the last 15 years. obviously something is working. it takes years to see the effect a reg change has on a body of water.

[edsonfisherman]

You make some very good points Gaffy, there needs to be change. Alberta fisheries needs to quit thinking every lake in alberta is a stocked put /take trout fishery, and start protecting the spawing fish by lowering the size of the fish we can keep with the use of tags, insted of keeping spawners. Also maybe bring in some fresh blood from other lakes in Canada (Great Lakes) and the US to strengthen the gene pool we already have. They do that already with trading alberta bighorn sheep and Wolves in the past, why not try it here. Also hire more F&W officers to be put into the field, instead of just a few lakes here and there.

"You can't go to any lake within 2 hours from Edmonton and get a 8+lb walleye, its a shame."

There are still some 8+lb Walleye Close to Alberta, you just have to really work hard to get them. Caught one last fall.

[moosehead7]

Alberta couldn't manage a gold fish right

[Graffy91]

You make some very good points Gaffy, there needs to be change. Alberta fisheries needs to quit thinking every lake in alberta is a stocked put /take trout fishery, and start protecting the spawing fish by lowering the size of the fish we can keep with the use of tags, insted of keeping spawners. Also maybe bring in some fresh blood from other lakes in Canada (Great Lakes) and the US to strengthen the gene pool we already have. They do that already with trading alberta bighorn sheep and Wolves in the past, why not try it here. Also hire more F&W officers to be put into the field, instead of just a few lakes here and there.

"You can't go to any lake within 2 hours from Edmonton and get a 8+lb walleye, its a shame."

There are still some 8+lb Walleye Close to Alberta, you just have to really work hard to get them. Caught one last fall.



Only place I expect/think I can catch something bigger than average size is the NSR.

[livinstone]

well in the lethbridge area we wish the lake were full of fish but the netters clean house and then when we drill 2 holes and 2 rods through the ice pretty much get nothing pretty soon the northern pike well be a catch and release or a draw fish.

[BeeGuy]

Only place I expect/think I can catch something bigger than average size is the NSR.

why do you think that is?

[lippy]

Lots of good points here the main problem is not enough F&W officers in the province to ensure a slot size regulation is adhered to. Alberta has 300 plus fishermen per body of water while Saskatchewan has something like 2 per body of water.I think overall the walleye are recovering from the collapse and the harvest restrictions have worked but now is the time for some forward thinking and a change needs to be made. Slot size limits would work if there were enough field officers to enforce the regulation.. otherwise forget it. I also agree that management of the fisheries needs to change but enforcement and management go hand in hand and there needs to be the staff available to do their jobs properly..the government needs to spend more money on resource management.

[75ft Arborist]

Slot size=great idea! :sHa_shakeshout:
Worked for other provinces, but wont work here!
Our govt will have to abandon its pay for each fish scam, through the tag system. :snapoutofit:
Maybe they should start looking at other provinces at whats working, and not whats failing here. :argue2:
You don't have to be a biologist to see whats happening to our fisheries, just an avid outdoorsman.

[edsonfisherman]

Only place I expect/think I can catch something bigger than average size is the NSR.

I have caught a 8lb walleye last year at Lac St.Anne, so you can catch them places other than NSR.

[Graffy91]

Slot size=great idea! :sHa_shakeshout:
Worked for other provinces, but wont work here!
Our govt will have to abandon its pay for each fish scam, through the tag system. :snapoutofit:
Maybe they should start looking at other provinces at whats working, and not whats failing here. :argue2:
You don't have to be a biologist to see whats happening to our fisheries, just an avid outdoorsman.

Someone who sees...


:D

[Dale S]

well in the lethbridge area we wish the lake were full of fish but the netters clean house and then when we drill 2 holes and 2 rods through the ice pretty much get nothing pretty soon the northern pike well be a catch and release or a draw fish.

You don't have a clue.Our lakes in the south are the most productive in the province.You just have to know, when and how to catch them.

[BeeGuy]

don't have a clue

Sums most of this thread up.

[Gust]

I think if we just got rid of walleye, all fisheries would become fan-friggin-tastic and there would be another benefit,, all those annoying SAWT fishers would have to go to Saskatchewan,, have you ever -poorly- timed breakfast at the A&W in Vulcan and the SAWT'ers are talking all puffy chested about which willy-wiggler will catch a walleye? and only from behind 18' and 150hp?

Get rid of the walleye and it will be like fishing in Shangrila.

Hate Walleye,,, one day down near Hays, 3 of us casting identical rigs in the exact same run at the exact same time from the exact same bucket of worms and targetting Goldeye, and what do I catch, one after another and another and another? Walleye, an Eye yes, but not the Eye of choice.

Death to Walleye!!!!!!

[pelada trochu]

What did u guys think of the rotating keep schedule. Its a shame to close a lake for ten years. Why cant it be open for a weekend?

[Battleriverman]

A point on walleyes . As I understand it , a walleye has to be at least 43 cm long before it is mature to reproduce !This means that the fish is probably 4 years old. That is why there is a size limit on them. Also they , like cutthroats are very subceptable to overfishing !You can pretty well catch a walleye with every second cast in some lakes & rivers ! Walleye are the eating fish & goldeye are like eating cottenbatten soaked in kerosene -unless they are smoked. No I am not a biologist but I am knowledgeable about a few things & fishing is one of them ! Apply for some tags & get some walleye !

[Mutter87]

Any Walleye/Pike over 18" should have to be released
Any trout/similar species 14" or over should have be released
Any perch over 10" should have to be released.

Pike limit should be dropped to 1 at all existing Pike lakes that allow harvest.

We need to get out of the "That's a big fish I'm gonna keep it mentality". Looking at the "skin vs graphite mount" thread shows just how many people are uneducated on the subject.

Skin mounts of Fish should me made from 2013 onward Illegal to produce.

Poaching should be mandatory prison sentances and hefty fines. We need minimum sentances as well. Caught with Walleye at Pine coulee? 1 year minimum jail time.

What I am proposing will not make Fisherman pop a chubby, however It will create trophy waters and more sustainable populations of fish.

[B_Type13X2]

Any Walleye/Pike over 18" should have to be released
Any trout/similar species 14" or over should have be released
Any perch over 10" should have to be released.

Pike limit should be dropped to 1 at all existing Pike lakes that allow harvest.

We need to get out of the "That's a big fish I'm gonna keep it mentality". Looking at the "skin vs graphite mount" thread shows just how many people are uneducated on the subject.

Skin mounts of Fish should me made from 2013 onward Illegal to produce.

Poaching should be mandatory prison sentances and hefty fines. We need minimum sentances as well. Caught with Walleye at Pine coulee? 1 year minimum jail time.

What I am proposing will not make Fisherman pop a chubby, however It will create trophy waters and more sustainable populations of fish.

Are you eating Glue? a 1 year prison sentence for a single walleye? how about just double the monetary penalty...

[Mutter87]

Are you eating Glue? a 1 year prison sentence for a single walleye? how about just double the monetary penalty...

Nope, 1 year minimum. I guarntee people will just say "**** it, not worth the hassle". After a few people get tossed in the jail people will see we mean business when It comes to protecting our fisheries.

[B_Type13X2]

Nope, 1 year minimum. I guarntee people will just say "**** it, not worth the hassle". After a few people get tossed in the jail people will see we mean business when It comes to protecting our fisheries.

Or people will start comparing our country to a police state and they would be right to do so. If they attempted to make this the law people would fight it tooth and nail. I'm a legal angler and even I would fight this as it would be stupidly expensive and the shear amount of negative press it would receive. Polygamy is technically illegal but there are colonies of people that do it up here and canada and do it publicly. Do you know why the fathers aren't arrested alot of the time? Because you get horrible media coverage of the dad being ripped away from his 16 crying children and 3 wives. Imagine how terrible the news coverage would be of a dad being ripped away from his family for a year over 1 fish.

Not to mention the expense of housing said person in jail for a year/ the expense to our social programs now that the wife and kids need welfare to make it by because daddy's in jail for taking a single walleye.

[EZM]

OK ............ I was avoiding getting into this one but I cannot stand it any longer .....

To apply any "one set of rules" to all fisheries would be a disaster. To think otherwise is simply foolish.

Rules, Regulations and, of course, Resource Management strategies must be specific to each watershed and reflect a long term plan. As with any plan, in order to gauge progress and monitor effectiveness, there needs to be constant measurement, adjustment etc.. (which of course takes more resources). With the limited amount of resources (meaning bios), these guys are forced to apply, in many cases, a "one shoe fits all" policy.

The only way to have a healthy, sustainable fishery is to invest more in our resources and get more guys out there .........

Blaming the SRD is useless, nonconstructive and short sighted given their constraints and challenges managing the population (impact) of fishing on so few lakes withing this province.

Here's my silly idea ........ I'd be in favor of higher licencing costs under the following pretense(s),

- we would like to lay out our expectations as sportsmen and fishermen,
- agree upon a goal (based on what we can or cannot realistically accomplish)
- and have the ability to provide input into any changes in the strategy as we move forward

If we REALLY want change, let's be prepared to move beyond "brain storming" and providing "clever one shoe fits all" ideas and study the issue, understand the issue, develop realistic expectations and support (yes with $) the program.......

My 2 cents ..........

[BeeGuy]

Are you eating Glue? a 1 year prison sentence for a single walleye? how about just double the monetary penalty...

Thankfully in this country everyone is entitled to an opinion, and free to speak it.

Regardless of it's accuracy or worth.

Keep in mind that Mutter is a self-proclaimed Fascist. Knowing that will help make sense of the inspiration behind his commentary.

The legal system is more or less designed on a balance of debts.

You cannot be punished in excess of your crime.

A pickerel from PCR is worth almost nothing, so, a fine of $100 would more than offset the infraction.



A year in jail at a cost to tax-payers of ~$60,000 for the crime of poaching a fish worth about $2 is insane.

[BeeGuy]

Given the paucity of water, and the hordes of fishermen in this province, there are still many opportunities, and quality fish to be had.

Most times I go out, I don't see any other fishermen, and I catch nice fish.

[EZM]

A year in jail at a cost to tax-payers of ~$60,000 for the crime of poaching a fish worth about $2 is insane.

A true facist would argue a $2 fish could be punished with a $1 bullet ...... (death penalty) .......... lol:sHa_shakeshout:

[Mutter87]

Thankfully in this country everyone is entitled to an opinion, and free to speak it.

Regardless of it's accuracy or worth.

Keep in mind that Mutter is a self-proclaimed Fascist. Knowing that will help make sense of the inspiration behind his commentary.

The legal system is more or less designed on a balance of debts.

You cannot be punished in excess of your crime.

A pickerel from PCR is worth almost nothing, so, a fine of $100 would more than offset the infraction.



A year in jail at a cost to tax-payers of ~$60,000 for the crime of poaching a fish worth about $2 is insane.

Easy there my red friend, I am no self proclaimed "Fascist", don't know where you got that from.

[Mutter87]

Thankfully in this country everyone is entitled to an opinion, and free to speak it.

Regardless of it's accuracy or worth.

Keep in mind that Mutter is a self-proclaimed Fascist. Knowing that will help make sense of the inspiration behind his commentary.

The legal system is more or less designed on a balance of debts.

You cannot be punished in excess of your crime.

A pickerel from PCR is worth almost nothing, so, a fine of $100 would more than offset the infraction.



A year in jail at a cost to tax-payers of ~$60,000 for the crime of poaching a fish worth about $2 is insane.
But how many fish are poached every year? If acrazy penalty was imposed on poachers, poaching would go down, fisheries would improve, less stocking would be needed (if my suggestions were instituted) there for we would save money in the long run. Its a win win situation in my eyes.

[BGSH]

But how many fish are poached every year? If acrazy penalty was imposed on poachers, poaching would go down, fisheries would improve, less stocking would be needed (if my suggestions were instituted) there for we would save money in the long run. Its a win win situation in my eyes.

No man, doesn't matter how big the fines are etc.. it's a sad fact, there will always be poaching.

[B_Type13X2]

But how many fish are poached every year? If acrazy penalty was imposed on poachers, poaching would go down, fisheries would improve, less stocking would be needed (if my suggestions were instituted) there for we would save money in the long run. Its a win win situation in my eyes.

Or like Marijuana laws in most cities police don't enforce them because of the sheer stupid amounts of paperwork they have to deal with so they only bother with people who have a quantity large enough to be considered trafficking. I'm sorry but your idea is bad making the punishment for a crime grossly disproportionate to the crime itself is ridiculous and is something that would only be passed in a dictatorship. Ie. Back in the days of the monarchy if you were caught hunting on the kings land you were sentenced to death. Do you really wanna roll our legal system back towards that over a fish?

[BeeGuy]

Easy there my red friend, I am no self proclaimed "Fascist", don't know where you got that from.

Would you describe yourself as "far right"?

[Mutter87]

Would you describe yourself as "far right"?

I'm not a Fascist!

[BeeGuy]

But how many fish are poached every year? If acrazy penalty was imposed on poachers, poaching would go down, fisheries would improve, less stocking would be needed (if my suggestions were instituted) there for we would save money in the long run. Its a win win situation in my eyes.

Assuming they give out 1000 tickets for keeping illegal walleye a year, and housing a poacher for a year costs $60,000 the "investment" would be $60,000,000.00 or $60 million for the first year of the "M87 Zero Tolerance" Program.

How long before we see this investment pay off?

The answer is: It never would.

[Mutter87]

No man, doesn't matter how big the fines are etc.. it's a sad fact, there will always be poaching.

I understand what your saying Mr Sami, just has to be something we can do.

[BeeGuy]

I'm not a Fascist!

Alright I'll drop it.

[Mutter87]

Assuming they give out 1000 tickets for keeping illegal walleye a year, and housing a poacher for a year costs $60,000 the "investment" would be $60,000,000.00 or $60 million for the first year of the "M87 Zero Tolerance" Program.

How long before we see this investment pay off?

The answer is: It never would.

Ok, mandatory $100,000 fines. $500 a month until it is paid off or you pass away.

[BeeGuy]

I'm not sure much needs to be done. Some, sure, however there are walleye everywhere in this province.

If I drive 150-200km I have many locations to choose from with a high likelihood of catching walleye and a fair likelihood of catching a good size one.

Every lake cannot be at it's peak continuously.

[Gust]

Ok, maybe not jail but mandatory community sentencing at a hatchery or a months worth of conservation classes,,, I sometimes think poachers assume a limitless harvest, or weeee knowledge of what fish go through to live.

Raising license costs is a must,, I am also for childrens licenses or $5.00 just so we can get the regs in their hands and not learn bad habits via their elders.

Also, working in a fishing store, I AM FREQUENTLY ASKED (hit caps lock sorry) if kids fish can the adult collect the catch, which the answer is technically no,, touch the rod and you are considered the fisherman,, if you are licensed and while fishing decide to reel in your kids rod, well, you are now fishing with two rods. Neither here nor there but many kidds are bought rods to maximise harvest. It's something that I am asked aboutdaily in the wetwater season.

[BeeGuy]

Ok, mandatory $100,000 fines. $500 a month until it is paid off or you pass away.

Maybe a year in a labour camp would be a good alternative to a year in jail and/or a $100,000.

[B_Type13X2]

Ok, mandatory $100,000 fines. $500 a month until it is paid off or you pass away.

No. No. and No. You can buy a cabin in the woods for that type of money. Is a walleye worth the cabin in the woods? The penalty has to fit the crime and again if they tried to pass that legislation almost no one would support it. Your advocating someone pay off an extra student loan/ Mortgage payment. Its like burning your house down because you saw a spider in the bathroom.

[BeeGuy]

No. No. and No. You can buy a cabin in the woods for that type of money. Is a walleye worth the cabin in the woods? The penalty has to fit the crime and again if they tried to pass that legislation almost no one would support it. Your advocating someone pay off an extra student loan/ Mortgage payment. Its like burning your house down because you saw a spider in the bathroom.

Oh man, binder dundat.

I hate spiders.

Imagine if spiders were big, like the size of a dog or something?

We wouldn't stand a chance.

[Mutter87]

No. No. and No. You can buy a cabin in the woods for that type of money. Is a walleye worth the cabin in the woods? The penalty has to fit the crime and again if they tried to pass that legislation almost no one would support it. Your advocating someone pay off an extra student loan/ Mortgage payment. Its like burning your house down because you saw a spider in the bathroom.

Then don't take the Walleye! I am not advocating these crimes for jack walking, Breathing to heavy or not eating as the designated times.

[Mutter87]

Ok, maybe not jail but mandatory community sentencing at a hatchery or a months worth of conservation classes,,, I sometimes think poachers assume a limitless harvest, or weeee knowledge of what fish go through to live.

Raising license costs is a must,, I am also for childrens licenses or $5.00 just so we can get the regs in their hands and not learn bad habits via their elders.

.

This seems like a more reasonable idea then my initial suggestion.

[CBintheNorth]

I have spoken with a couple of very ' educated ' people about slot limits on Cold lake.

I suggested fishermen having to throw back trout smaller than 60cm and bigger than 75cm. They both had the same response telling me that the lake would be fished out in less than 5 yrs that way.

I offered that there are fish over that size limit right now that would keep spawning and smaller fish that would grow into the slot, so the cycle would keep repeating. Some fish would survive beyond the slot to replace the old fish that die off.

There guys firmly believed that NO fish would make it after growing into the slot size.

The stupidity wasn't what angered me, it was the fact that our hard earned dollars pay for this garbage research to help create our regulations.

[B_Type13X2]

Then don't take the Walleye! I am not advocating these crimes for jack walking, Breathing to heavy or not eating as the designated times.

No your advocating these laws for taking a single fish, something that would be grossly irresponsible to reinforce for our police , would have no effect on poaching, and would likely increase violence around lakes and rivers as poachers would have real reason to make sure people don't get the chance to report them.

[BeeGuy]

I have spoken with a couple of very ' educated ' people about slot limits on Cold lake.

I suggested fishermen having to throw back trout smaller than 60cm and bigger than 75cm. They both had the same response telling me that the lake would be fished out in less than 5 yrs that way.

I offered that there are fish over that size limit right now that would keep spawning and smaller fish that would grow into the slot, so the cycle would keep repeating. Some fish would survive beyond the slot to replace the old fish that die off.

There guys firmly believed that NO fish would make it after growing into the slot size.

The stupidity wasn't what angered me, it was the fact that our hard earned dollars pay for this garbage research to help create our regulations.

garbage research?

Have you personally examined any of the data?

[EZM]

I have spoken with a couple of very ' educated ' people about slot limits on Cold lake.

I suggested fishermen having to throw back trout smaller than 60cm and bigger than 75cm. They both had the same response telling me that the lake would be fished out in less than 5 yrs that way.

I offered that there are fish over that size limit right now that would keep spawning and smaller fish that would grow into the slot, so the cycle would keep repeating. Some fish would survive beyond the slot to replace the old fish that die off.

There guys firmly believed that NO fish would make it after growing into the slot size.

The stupidity wasn't what angered me, it was the fact that our hard earned dollars pay for this garbage research to help create our regulations.

I read a VERY ENLIGHTENING study, can't remember the exact one, but it spoke about slot sizes having the following effects (in order of impact); (I will summarize the best I can)

1) Harvest slot sizes represent a % of the population on a declining scale as the size, age, maturity, of the fish increases. Both Larger Slot sizes and tighter tolerances on slot sizes will reduce the overall harvest simply through statistical probability. In other words, if only 5% of the fish "fit" your tag, you can never remove 5% of the lakes entire population.

2) Slot sizes, when coinciding with fish of "spawning size" will have a greater overall impact on short term populations of the watershed. So, slot sizes in overpopulated lakes should coincide with spawning sizes NOT the smaller sized fish as "conventional wisdom" would have us believe.

Interesting tool - could be very effective - IF and only IF there is enough study done on the watershed before implementation.

[CBintheNorth]

garbage research?

Have you personally examined any of the data?

Yes, garbage. I have read every study result and data report I have been able to get my hands on regarding that lake and IMO, for someone with the same info available to them (and more) to spew an opinion as statistically impossible as "this lake would be fished out within five years" is ridiculous.

[CBintheNorth]

Interesting tool - could be very effective - IF and only IF there is enough study done on the watershed before implementation.

Exactly my point. The idea has been used SUCCESSFULLY throughout North America to help balance the exact same problem we struggle with here. No one is trying to re-intent the wheel here, just look at what others are doing that works and adapt it to match our waterbodies and species.

[wetchimo]

Ok, mandatory $100,000 fines. $500 a month until it is paid off or you pass away.

Guys we are the people who do the most fishing, just be reasonable. Don't keep 15 perch a day and fish there 4 times per week. Catch and release is the way to make sure our kids will be on the forum as well.

[slough shark]

This is a very tricky situation and the most annoying thing is that many lakes/rivers are managed using blanket regulations where they would benefit from more specific regs. There are lakes that target keeping all but 1 kind of fish (pcr, pigeon, crawling valley etc... ) and we wonder why they are the bulk of what we catch. I've always been of the mind picking a winner does the rest of the lake no good, especially when they are a predator fish. I'm not against walleye, I don't mind that they're there and I like to catch them but giving them a huge advantage over the other species isn't good, I would feel the same if we did the same with pike.

[Pikebreath]

I read a VERY ENLIGHTENING study, can't remember the exact one, but it spoke about slot sizes having the following effects (in order of impact); (I will summarize the best I can)

1) Harvest slot sizes represent a % of the population on a declining scale as the size, age, maturity, of the fish increases. Both Larger Slot sizes and tighter tolerances on slot sizes will reduce the overall harvest simply through statistical probability. In other words, if only 5% of the fish "fit" your tag, you can never remove 5% of the lakes entire population.



Which 5% of the population are you removing? If you remove all the 18" fish there will no 20" fish next year. The key to slots is making sure that not all the fish in the slot are harvested so that enough fish can get through the slots to provide the quality angling experience for numbers of large fish that we anglers desire. I will repeat again slots work best where angling pressure is light to moderate. Heavy angling pressure can remove a year class which if done 3-5 years in a row will decimate a fishery.

In a way, you could say we have a slot limit now. With minimum size limits and our current angling harvest pressure, we are very effective at removing / culling out the legal sized fish in many lakes. If these fish have at least had a chance to spawn, then the population will carry on albeit for smaller fish than we want to catch. But what if these same harvest rates where applied to a smaller sized slot? How many fish would be left to spawn?

We could get into compensatory and additive mortality as they relate to angling harvest along with the pyramidal structure of most fish populations,,, basic widllife biology 101 stuff which all wildlife biologists learn in school. Suffice it to say, with out getting into the details, the key to improving age and year class distribution to balance / limit the harvest between the year classes. The issue is how do we do this?

Are daily and slot limits enough to accomplish this? What about the angler who fishes 10 - 50 days a year and keeps his legal limit? Is this sustainable?

Or do we need a maximum yearly limit on how many fish each angler can harvest? How about 10 pike or walleye a year spread out over several different lakes and sizes of fish? Would this make a more balanced harvest regime and better balanced fisheries?

[pelada trochu]

Which 5% of the population are you removing? If you remove all the 18" fish there will no 20" fish next year. The key to slots is making sure that not all the fish in the slot are harvested so that enough fish can get through the slots to provide the quality angling experience for numbers of large fish that we anglers desire. I will repeat again slots work best where angling pressure is light to moderate. Heavy angling pressure can remove a year class which if done 3-5 years in a row will decimate a fishery.

In a way, you could say we have a slot limit now. With minimum size limits and our current angling harvest pressure, we are very effective at removing / culling out the legal sized fish in many lakes. If these fish have at least had a chance to spawn, then the population will carry on albeit for smaller fish than we want to catch. But what if these same harvest rates where applied to a smaller sized slot? How many fish would be left to spawn?

We could get into compensatory and additive mortality as they relate to angling harvest along with the pyramidal structure of most fish populations,,, basic widllife biology 101 stuff which all wildlife biologists learn in school. Suffice it to say, with out getting into the details, the key to improving age and year class distribution to balance / limit the harvest between the year classes. The issue is how do we do this?

Are daily and slot limits enough to accomplish this? What about the angler who fishes 10 - 50 days a year and keeps his legal limit? Is this sustainable?

Or do we need a maximum yearly limit on how many fish each angler can harvest? How about 10 pike or walleye a year spread out over several different lakes and sizes of fish? Would this make a more balanced harvest regime and better balanced fisheries?


I say it again. we need rotating take weekends. This will put even pressure on the fishing and satisfy everyone. Why should a take be put on one species to be fished year round. You have to maintain a balanced equilibrium. None of this were running out of large pike better drop the slot size and stock the dhit out of it. We got christmas once a year. Please us. Cant we have take a few times a year. It effectively moves the take to all sizes in the lake balancing the biomass changes and keeping a natural balance in the eco system.

This is a ridiculous comparison. But how else to ram the point home. Think of it this way. Lets kill all pregnant females. After a few generations. Hey where did everybody go. Slot takes make that same sense to me. Would it not be better to just randomly take a quantity of all sizes every so often.

[huntsfurfish]

Which 5% of the population are you removing? If you remove all the 18" fish there will no 20" fish next year. The key to slots is making sure that not all the fish in the slot are harvested so that enough fish can get through the slots to provide the quality angling experience for numbers of large fish that we anglers desire. I will repeat again slots work best where angling pressure is light to moderate. Heavy angling pressure can remove a year class which if done 3-5 years in a row will decimate a fishery.

In a way, you could say we have a slot limit now. With minimum size limits and our current angling harvest pressure, we are very effective at removing / culling out the legal sized fish in many lakes. If these fish have at least had a chance to spawn, then the population will carry on albeit for smaller fish than we want to catch. But what if these same harvest rates where applied to a smaller sized slot? How many fish would be left to spawn?

We could get into compensatory and additive mortality as they relate to angling harvest along with the pyramidal structure of most fish populations,,, basic widllife biology 101 stuff which all wildlife biologists learn in school. Suffice it to say, with out getting into the details, the key to improving age and year class distribution to balance / limit the harvest between the year classes. The issue is how do we do this?

Are daily and slot limits enough to accomplish this? What about the angler who fishes 10 - 50 days a year and keeps his legal limit? Is this sustainable?Or do we need a maximum yearly limit on how many fish each angler can harvest? How about 10 pike or walleye a year spread out over several different lakes and sizes of fish? Would this make a more balanced harvest regime and better balanced fisheries?

Agree, good post.

[Mutter87]

Tags are not a bad idea. 5 pike, 5 trout (any species) with the purchase of Your license. Kids are 1 Pike 1 trout and Walleye would still be on draw with none over 18".

[pelada trochu]

Tags are not a bad idea. 5 pike, 5 trout (any species) with the purchase of Your license. Kids are 1 Pike 1 trout and Walleye would still be on draw with none over 18".

#%#%hit why should i be limited to 10 fish per year. You just created a tag black market

Wake up guys and smell the coffee

Your ideas still target the largest fish one can catch or a specific size of fish. They dont balance the ecosystem and they do not address fishing pressure. Bettervset tags for the smallest size class where the pyramidical grouping of fish bla bla bla.

Set an open day or weekend a couple times a year. Then the size that is retIned will be random or represent the largest and easiest year class to catch.

My lake has a zero take walleye but we decimate the pike with the slot size. Id be fine with open pike take size a couple times a year and same for walleye. Then closed for periods at a time.


Especially if the open periods moved from lake to lake since lots of people move around. This would put everyone on the summer fish tour

[Pikebreath]

Pelada,

My memory doesn't remember the exact details on this but short 'harvest seasons" have been tried on a select few lakes in the past. Long Lake (walleye) near Boyle was one these lakes and I believe there a lake near St Paul as well. The harvest period was longer than the weekend you suggest,, (maybe a couple weeks?) ... Anyways the long and the short of it was angling pressure was concentrated (actually excessive) on these lakes during the open season and even with low limits, it didn't take long to harvest more fish than was desired. Perhaps someone with a better memory can enligthen us more on this.

Generally with hunting, it has been found that season length has much less effect on harvest rates than does restrictions on the number of participants and / or harvest. If you fail to restrict the number of participants / harvest, all you do is concentrate the effort over a shorter period which can create other issues such as crowding.

With the open weekend concept, it is likely that crowding that would occur on the open lakes. How many lakes have the infastructure to handle the numbers of anglers who would descend upon those lakes on the open weekends?

[Pikebreath]

#%#%hit why should i be limited to 10 fish per year. You just created a tag black market

Wake up guys and smell the coffee

Your ideas still target the largest fish one can catch or a specific size of fish. They dont balance the ecosystem and they do not address fishing pressure.



Pelada, the issue in Alberta with our limited lakes and high numbers of anglers is that 10 fish per angler per year may be closer to what is sustainable. I don't actually think it would be 10 total fish but maybe 10 pike, and 10 walleye and so on, The actual numbers are best determined by fisheries biologists who have much better data and expertise than we have.

For examples sake, let's just say that with the purchase of your angling license you get 10 pike tags (and 10 walleye and so on) for the season. Certainly these could be set up such that 6 tags might be for small young fish, 3 tags for mid size fish and 1 tag for that trophy fish of the year. It could also be easily set up you have to harvest your 10 pike over a minumum of 5 lakes with lake limits of say 1 - 3 fish (of varying sizes). Lake A with an over population of pike could be 3 small fish.... Lake B with a stable population might be 1 small, 1 mid and 1 large fish.... Lake C with a recovering population might be open for 1 mid size fish,, and so it goes.

Again the actual details are best left to fishery managers to determine,,,but the tag / slot concept might open many more walleye lakes to a limited harvest as well as improve the quality of many pike and walleye fisheries in this province. Additionally this should help in spreading angling pressure around rather than concentrate anglers on those few lakes that currently allow some harvest.

[edsonfisherman]

Any Walleye/Pike over 18" should have to be released
Any trout/similar species 14" or over should have be released
Any perch over 10" should have to be released.

Pike limit should be dropped to 1 at all existing Pike lakes that allow harvest.

We need to get out of the "That's a big fish I'm gonna keep it mentality". Looking at the "skin vs graphite mount" thread shows just how many people are uneducated on the subject.

Skin mounts of Fish should me made from 2013 onward Illegal to produce.

Poaching should be mandatory prison sentances and hefty fines. We need minimum sentances as well. Caught with Walleye at Pine coulee? 1 year minimum jail time.

What I am proposing will not make Fisherman pop a chubby, however It will create trophy waters and more sustainable populations of fish.

I like this, the only thing I would add to it would be more F&W officers to enforce the rules. There are still to many (and not every one) people in this province that think its no big deal to keep a Illegal fish, that them keeping just one or two is no big deal. Had more than one time that me and my buddies had to tell some people out at like isle poaching that if they didn't put the walleye back in the water their pic and licence place would be going to F&W.

[hit_theice]

no one is going to agree on a limit for any lake in alberta the problem is not whether or not they let you keep walleye it is the size of the walleye that they are letting you keep when they allow harvest. the walleye limits should be this: 2-3 walleye under 15" and 1 over say 25". this protects the walleye that do the majority of the spawning. this is essentially what they use on walleye everywhere else in north america.

there is no possible way to catch every walleye under 15" from a lake. it is not possible so once a walleye hits 15" it can spawn freely every year until it is over 25" and can be obtained legally.

the smaller the fish the higher the number of fish of that size. bio mass problems. by removing a good number of fish under 15" you are leaving behind the food they would consume for your fish over 15". the spawners which leaves happier, healthier and better spawning fish.

do not fall for the 10 anglers per lake bs they have been feeding albertan's for years. no matter what the population there are still ways to manage it properly. if all the fish in pigeon lake are between 15"-25" and the whole population of edmonton fishes there every day for a whole year. then i am sorry but no walleye can legally be taken out. granted some will die from being hooked etc. but it still gives people the hope that maybe they will be able to keep a fish this trip. where as now you know you can't legally keep any unless u have applied for a draw and then gotten a tag.

if u look at all the lakes in minnesota, michigan vs the number of anglers the majority of their big fisheries get way more pressure then any of the lakes here in alberta. if you don't believe me youtube opening day fishing in minnesota. they call it the opener and people are lined up on shore for the stroke of midnight so they can fish. some places it is even a long weekend and there is no school and i am not making this up. since they have open water longer then we do it gives there fish a longer growing season yes but it also gives people out there more days to harvest fish then in alberta.

have you ever seen grumpy old men? it is actually like that out there with cities of permanent shacks out on the ice asap. they keep what they call 'eaters' out there for walleye. which generally speaking refers to any walleye 15" or under. a perfect 'eater' is around 14.5". they have managed their walleye out there like this for years and it works perfectly fine. u catch a lot of 18-20" walleye out there but they all have to be thrown back. and they are nice and healthy because there is food in the lake for them. once the fish hit a certain length you can keep normally 1 "over" that length.

the main thing i would like to say is however you think they should manage our fishery. then set your limits by your own personal beliefs. if they are letting you keep 43cm or bigger walleye and maybe you catch one around 50cm. throw it back and try to get one closer to 43cm. that is what i do. i keep fish within my limits based on how i think they should be doing it. personally i don't think you should be allowed to keep a 50cm walleye so i would throw it back and hope for a smaller one.

limit your limit!!!

[huntsfurfish]

no one is going to agree on a limit for any lake in alberta the problem is not whether or not they let you keep walleye it is the size of the walleye that they are letting you keep when they allow harvest. the walleye limits should be this: 2-3 walleye under 15" and 1 over say 25". this protects the walleye that do the majority of the spawning. this is essentially what they use on walleye everywhere else in north america.

there is no possible way to catch every walleye under 15" from a lake. it is not possible so once a walleye hits 15" it can spawn freely every year until it is over 25" and can be obtained legally.

the smaller the fish the higher the number of fish of that size. bio mass problems. by removing a good number of fish under 15" you are leaving behind the food they would consume for your fish over 15". the spawners which leaves happier, healthier and better spawning fish.

do not fall for the 10 anglers per lake bs they have been feeding albertan's for years. no matter what the population there are still ways to manage it properly. if all the fish in pigeon lake are between 15"-25" and the whole population of edmonton fishes there every day for a whole year. then i am sorry but no walleye can legally be taken out. granted some will die from being hooked etc. but it still gives people the hope that maybe they will be able to keep a fish this trip. where as now you know you can't legally keep any unless u have applied for a draw and then gotten a tag.

if u look at all the lakes in minnesota, michigan vs the number of anglers the majority of their big fisheries get way more pressure then any of the lakes here in alberta. if you don't believe me youtube opening day fishing in minnesota. they call it the opener and people are lined up on shore for the stroke of midnight so they can fish. some places it is even a long weekend and there is no school and i am not making this up. since they have open water longer then we do it gives there fish a longer growing season yes but it also gives people out there more days to harvest fish then in alberta.

have you ever seen grumpy old men? it is actually like that out there with cities of permanent shacks out on the ice asap. they keep what they call 'eaters' out there for walleye. which generally speaking refers to any walleye 15" or under. a perfect 'eater' is around 14.5". they have managed their walleye out there like this for years and it works perfectly fine. u catch a lot of 18-20" walleye out there but they all have to be thrown back. and they are nice and healthy because there is food in the lake for them. once the fish hit a certain length you can keep normally 1 "over" that length.

the main thing i would like to say is however you think they should manage our fishery. then set your limits by your own personal beliefs. if they are letting you keep 43cm or bigger walleye and maybe you catch one around 50cm. throw it back and try to get one closer to 43cm. that is what i do. i keep fish within my limits based on how i think they should be doing it. personally i don't think you should be allowed to keep a 50cm walleye so i would throw it back and hope for a smaller one.

limit your limit!!!

You obviously were not around when the size limit for walleye in AB was 16" and the fisheries collapsed(took about 10 years to recover). It would be just a matter of time till it happened again with 2-3 fish under 15:snapoutofit:

And we do not live in everywhere else!

We live in limited water AB which is in to many fisherman county.:)

[pelada trochu]

Pelada, the issue in Alberta with our limited lakes and high numbers of anglers is that 10 fish per angler per year may be closer to what is sustainable. I don't actually think it would be 10 total fish but maybe 10 pike, and 10 walleye and so on, The actual numbers are best determined by fisheries biologists who have much better data and expertise than we have.

For examples sake, let's just say that with the purchase of your angling license you get 10 pike tags (and 10 walleye and so on) for the season. Certainly these could be set up such that 6 tags might be for small young fish, 3 tags for mid size fish and 1 tag for that trophy fish of the year. It could also be easily set up you have to harvest your 10 pike over a minumum of 5 lakes with lake limits of say 1 - 3 fish (of varying sizes). Lake A with an over population of pike could be 3 small fish.... Lake B with a stable population might be 1 small, 1 mid and 1 large fish.... Lake C with a recovering population might be open for 1 mid size fish,, and so it goes.

Again the actual details are best left to fishery managers to determine,,,but the tag / slot concept might open many more walleye lakes to a limited harvest as well as improve the quality of many pike and walleye fisheries in this province. Additionally this should help in spreading angling pressure around rather than concentrate anglers on those few lakes that currently allow some harvest.

i love to fish. im a conservationist. i know my idea of open lake (still daily limit) will work. A guy has to get a feed in once in a while. otherwise they just poach it anyway. so what if we have a busy may long at lake xyz. She will be vacant the rest of the year. whites are 5 on most lakes and they dont destroy the lake in a weekend. wabamun could be open for 2 days! Next weekend its another lake etc.

But im so firmly against the idea that in all of alberta fishing i will only be allowed x fish per year that Im willing to punch anyone in the mouth for bringing up that stupidity. close that pie hole now before they legislate something dumb like that.

its like you said i can only drive 10 miles per year! How about only 3 deer lifetime!

You create a black market for licenses this way. Hey your grandma using her's this year. my way is open limited time. you snooze you loose. they have free fishing day twice a year. why not open all the lakes that day??? i wouldnt it would still require a license on a take day.

supply and demand. charge more for a license. just dont ever remove my ability to fish. 10 fish a year will quickly become 10 fishing days a year due to fish mortality due to fishing...

[pelada trochu]

Rant rant rant....

[ramriver]

Lots of good points here the main problem is not enough F&W officers in the province to ensure a slot size regulation is adhered to. Alberta has 300 plus fishermen per body of water while Saskatchewan has something like 2 per body of water.I think overall the walleye are recovering from the collapse and the harvest restrictions have worked but now is the time for some forward thinking and a change needs to be made. Slot size limits would work if there were enough field officers to enforce the regulation.. otherwise forget it. I also agree that management of the fisheries needs to change but enforcement and management go hand in hand and there needs to be the staff available to do their jobs properly..the government needs to spend more money on resource management.

bang on! you guys can make any suggestions you want regarding the management, but it comes down to the enforcement and officer presence. its only alberta take what you can get and legally kill all the mature fish.

[Mutter87]

#%#%hit why should i be limited to 10 fish per year. You just created a tag black market



That would not be a big deal, the same ammount of fish would be leaving the water. If I use my 10 tags, then my 3 buddies illegally give me there 10 tags, the fish do not know the difference.

People in this province can not be relied on to conserve the fisheries themselves, so we need to bring in regulatiions like this.

[AdverseCity]

I won't pretend to have an educated opinion on managing fisheries but I do have an idea that would definitely help.

What about creating a volunteer F&W officer program? Interested people would need to take a course (maybe even once a year) educating them about the regulations and reasons for them, proper fish handling techniques and other good stuff. Then give them LIMITED F&W officer powers like inspecting hooks and livewells, counting and measuring kept fish and the ability to quickly get a real F&W officer on site. As a side benefit think of all the knowledge and good fishing attitudes/habits that will spread during these inspections. Some people would react badly but I think the majority of people would realize it's for the best.

Thoughts?

[Mutter87]

Sounds like a good idea to me.

[Wild&Free]

I won't pretend to have an educated opinion on managing fisheries but I do have an idea that would definitely help.

What about creating a volunteer F&W officer program? Interested people would need to take a course (maybe even once a year) educating them about the regulations and reasons for them, proper fish handling techniques and other good stuff. Then give them LIMITED F&W officer powers like inspecting hooks and livewells, counting and measuring kept fish and the ability to quickly get a real F&W officer on site. As a side benefit think of all the knowledge and good fishing attitudes/habits that will spread during these inspections. Some people would react badly but I think the majority of people would realize it's for the best.

Thoughts?

They're either F&W or they're nothing. Good idea, but in reality it would more be like a citizen on patrol thing imo, if they 'observed' anything illegal happening they would call an officer in. No such thing as granting limited RCMP powers to security guards and the like. Plus if some joker without a badge wanted to 'inspect' my gear because he thinks it's illegal he'll have another issue on his hands.

I think there should be something similar to CORE for fishing. Focus it on fish habitat, life cycle, mortality rates, handling, ect. ect. It should also be taught in high school, and offered for very low cost afterwards. Hell, I'm not even sure if they do CORE training for hunters anymore, or in Alberta at all since I didn't have to give my hunter # to get a license. I did it at 15 in BC before I was no longer able to hunt as a minor with my dad.
It shouldn't be a requirement to get a license but should be required to apply for tags, so if you're going to fish a lake that is being restored you have the information as to why it is being done and how to do your part to help it and other lakes.

just my 2 cents, hope no one gets bent out of shape over it.

[AdverseCity]

They're either F&W or they're nothing. Good idea, but in reality it would more be like a citizen on patrol thing imo, if they 'observed' anything illegal happening they would call an officer in. No such thing as granting limited RCMP powers to security guards and the like. Plus if some joker without a badge wanted to 'inspect' my gear because he thinks it's illegal he'll have another issue on his hands.

Can I ask why wouldn't allow a volunteer officer to check your fish? I'm assuming you're all legal and have nothing to hide so is this just a "you can't force me so I won't do it out of spite" type of thing? You'd be within your rights to refuse but that's not actively helping anything.

And as for the security guard analogy, they might not have any RCMP powers but when they make a call about minor illegal things I'm sure the cops take them a little more serious, that's all I'm suggesting here. I think the majority of people wouldn't mind, personally I'd feel good that someone else is doing what they can to curb illegal fishing and promote good fishing attitudes and habits.

[MoFugger21]

I won't pretend to have an educated opinion on managing fisheries but I do have an idea that would definitely help.

What about creating a volunteer F&W officer program? Interested people would need to take a course (maybe even once a year) educating them about the regulations and reasons for them, proper fish handling techniques and other good stuff. Then give them LIMITED F&W officer powers like inspecting hooks and livewells, counting and measuring kept fish and the ability to quickly get a real F&W officer on site. As a side benefit think of all the knowledge and good fishing attitudes/habits that will spread during these inspections. Some people would react badly but I think the majority of people would realize it's for the best.

Thoughts?

Isn't this the kind of thing the Report-A-Poacher line is for.....??


And I'm with Wild&Free. If a someone in plain clothes came up to me while I was fishing and asked to "investigate" my gear/license/catch/etc, I'm pretty sure I'd tell 'em to get bent in a real hurry. If they think I'm doing something illegal, call RAP and I'll gladly show the CO whatever it is they want to see. I've got nothing to hide, but pretty soon there'd be ordinary citizens thinking they have more power than they actually do, and I could see it causing more headaches for the CO's than actually helping.

[pelada trochu]

Sounds like a good idea to me.

in simple terms... just extend the direction your heading indefinitely to see where you will end up.

catch all you want -> slot sizes -> closed lakes -> 10 fish per year per person harvest -> no fish per year harvest -> no fishing period.

id rather see a lake fished out completely than loose my rights and freedom to act as a responsible adult and fish when and where i want. its not like they mourn lost relatives or something...

look at hockey rinks, the other day i was on the second floor of a rink watching the arena below while the peewee game was on. i couldnt see through this white fish net thing they had on just in case a puck with enough velocity came soaring up from that pee wee player on a trajectory which would have surely killed me. seems to me you should bring a helmet to the game instead and enjoy the view. they even arrested a guy for possession of a peanut butter sandwhich in public.

airplanes have all these rules and restrictions and cavity searches.... maybe we will have that at all boat launches in the future and every boat on the lake will have to pass through a check point before proceeding directly on or off the lake or back to the cabin.

maybe we need a fishing rod registry??? or a hook and lure confiscation and issuance only by the govenment after a background check???

thats the direction your advocating. If you want to make an immediate and tangible impact, I suggest that you give up fishing. That would be a step in the right direction.


education is always the solution. lets see some signs up at launches indicating the status of the fishery and recommended practices. Lets see some creel surveys. lets get some television programs which focus on conservation and show how important and wonderous fish habitat is. our government recently repealed laws protecting fish habitats. I called my area fish and wildlife guy and left a message requesting information and he never even called back. so they can do a way better job by me.

changing to yearly limits per person is ludicris.


:angry3: :angry3: :angry3: :angry3: :angry3:

[pelada trochu]

Isn't this the kind of thing the Report-A-Poacher line is for.....??


And I'm with Wild&Free. If a someone in plain clothes came up to me while I was fishing and asked to "investigate" my gear/license/catch/etc, I'm pretty sure I'd tell 'em to get bent in a real hurry. If they think I'm doing something illegal, call RAP and I'll gladly show the CO whatever it is they want to see. I've got nothing to hide, but pretty soon there'd be ordinary citizens thinking they have more power than they actually do, and I could see it causing more headaches for the CO's than actually helping.

if you show up with a badge indicating your a certified conservation assistant. I would definitely respect it. But those guys carry a gun for a reason.

then there will always be the weirdo's who are looking for some kinda power trip and take it upon themselves to board every vessel they find. so id rather just triple my license cost and hire more officers. how many lakes do we have... just put one out there permanently at the major places and have him hit the surrounding areas randomly.

i got a 25000 dollar boat, never mind equipment launch fees, gas, travel, food, lodging, etc... 25 bucks for a license seems ridiculous...

[MoFugger21]

if you show up with a badge indicating your a certified conservation assistant. I would definitely respect it. But those guys carry a gun for a reason.

then there will always be the weirdo's who are looking for some kinda power trip and take it upon themselves to board every vessel they find. so id rather just triple my license cost and hire more officers. how many lakes do we have... just put one out there permanently at the major places and have him hit the surrounding areas randomly.

Not to sound like I'm back tracking, but ya, if the plain clothes citizen showed me some sort of certification of authority, then obviously I'd respect it (I still think you'd get people abusing that power though...). I just meant if 'Joe-blow', whom had taken this 'course', came up to me and demanded to see my license and measure my fish, without indicating any sort of authority to do so, I wouldn't hesitate telling him/her where to go....

My preference is to use RAP and leave it up to the CO's. I don't need to be confronting people and getting myself into a situation that could have been avoided.

And I agree, I'd rather pay more to have more CO's than having volunteers taking on the role of 'rent-a-cop'.

[Mutter87]

I am in favor of shutting down the harvest of most fish and lakes, pelada trochu. I am not the ally of Catch and keep fisherman, trust me on this. Alberta simply can not sustain trophy and Catch and keep fisheries.

[Mutter87]

I don't need to be confronting people and getting myself into a situation that could have been avoided.

.

Sounds like something that is right up my alley that I would excel at. I'd be the first name on the volunteer paper.

[AppleJax]

Sounds like something that is right up my alley that I would excel at. I'd be the first name on the volunteer paper.

Are you a security guard or a mall cop in real life? I have nothing to hide, and if somebody in plain clothes got confrontational with me.........I hope they dont mind getting wet.

[AdverseCity]

Sounds like something that is right up my alley that I would excel at. I'd be the first name on the volunteer paper.

Sorry to say but if it was set-up and ran how I'm picturing it, you wouldn't make the cut based on your heated reactions to this thread. You've been flexing your digital muscles the whole time, I think you'd honestly do more damage than good out there. I appreciate your dedication but we don't need tough guys, we need diplomats and teachers out there.

Hope I didn't offend you, I'm just calling it as I see (and read) it.

[AppleJax]

^^^^X2

[pelada trochu]

great to hear some common sense starting to show up. sorry for my rant guys but this just got to me.

im also clarifying a point i made earlier.

i see lakes where we have take on slot sizes. i dont condone taking mature spawning fish. I also see closed walleye fisheries alot. these fisheries are stocked and they are a bio shock. this creates a huge strain on the natural spawning species as their minnow young are ate out of the lake. i know we cant open walleye for total open at this young stage but we need to assist the natural species by having staged take limits as the majority of the young walleye (whatever species) is being stabilized.

my concern is that when it is opened it is too late and needs corrective action by then. creating a gap in the control feature we are trying to implement by introducing other species.


additionally if walleye opens up the fishing pressure skyrockets and then puts additional pressures on the native species as a by product of the walleye fishermen (think pike and lake white here). Now instead i would like to see fisheries open walleye staged on lakes and then cut off the existing take limits on these days so that the impact can be controlled.

if they open walleye permanently, then i would like to see additional full closures for a couple years on the native/established species. to allow them to stabilize and recover from this expected extra pressure.

in all cases use common sense!


this wouldnt be necessary if fisheries stocked all species when stocking a lake and did so in what they consider relative ratios which would exist given successful programming. eg. stock pike and whites with the walleye to effect a ratio of change.

dont get me started on habitat change.....

[Wild&Free]

Can I ask why wouldn't allow a volunteer officer to check your fish? I'm assuming you're all legal and have nothing to hide so is this just a "you can't force me so I won't do it out of spite" type of thing? You'd be within your rights to refuse but that's not actively helping anything.

And as for the security guard analogy, they might not have any RCMP powers but when they make a call about minor illegal things I'm sure the cops take them a little more serious, that's all I'm suggesting here. I think the majority of people wouldn't mind, personally I'd feel good that someone else is doing what they can to curb illegal fishing and promote good fishing attitudes and habits.

A volunteer officer is not an officer and has absolutely 0 authority so why would I submit to someone who legally, lawfully and technically is my equal. It would be like knocking on your neighbors door to ask to come inside and search for contraband. I am a mature, responsible member of society and follow all the laws I'm aware of. Unfortunately with many thousands of pages of legislation governing anything we do in this country(income tax is a 2500 page document for example) it's kind of hard to know them all. I'm not a fan of any form of big brother type attitudes, or neighbor watching neighbor to tell on; however there is right and wrong and if I see something wrong I'll inform the proper authorities. If someone who is not a CO ever asks to measure my catch or to inspect my gear however will get a flat refusal from me. They can call RAPP on me, but the CO will find me to be legal.

I have the right under the constitution to not be subject to unwarranted search and seizure. I do not consent to searches. I will however voluntarily show my catch, gear, license, new shoes, paring knife, and whatever new toy I have laying around to a CO without even being asked, so long as he comes to me first, I'll even hang about and wait to show off if he's busy and making rounds. Always get some good info with a good BS session with the COs.

Basically, it comes around to the golden rule again (do unto others...) and quiet frankly I would never ask to do anything that wasn't within my duty to do and expect to be treated the same. I do not police my neighbors and do not wish to be policed by them. Although, one of my neighbors works for F&W so ya, there is THAT.

[MoFugger21]

Sounds like something that is right up my alley that I would excel at. I'd be the first name on the volunteer paper.

...but pretty soon there'd be ordinary citizens thinking they have more power than they actually do, and I could see it causing more headaches for the CO's than actually helping.

Hmmmmm..... :rolleye2: Lol

[AdverseCity]

What I'm suggesting is basically an unpaid (and obviously unarmed) F&W officer, with the same training and having proven themselves to be respectful ambassadors of the sport. You're right that some people would refuse a search just because they can, I'm not sure how to deal with that as this is still a fresh idea in my mind. I just think that the idea has potential, it just needs to be designed by people more informed than myself. Without the "asking to see your catch" part I practice this same principle all the time. I've never been close to calling anyone in as I've never actually found (or was convinced) that anyone was poaching, it's usually just informing people of things they obviously didn't realize. I've also never even once thought the people were upset at me for what I did, probably because I tend to approach friendly people and leave the grumpy guys alone. I'll admit the idea needs a lot of work but I think it has potential, at the very least you'd end up with a better informed public.

[hit_theice]

You obviously were not around when the size limit for walleye in AB was 16" and the fisheries collapsed(took about 10 years to recover). It would be just a matter of time till it happened again with 2-3 fish under 15:snapoutofit:

And we do not live in everywhere else!

We live in limited water AB which is in to many fisherman county.:)

i was around when the limit was 15" and it wasn't 1 or 2 fish in most cases it was 5 fish and that was a minimum size limit so the spawners were also taken not just the 15" fish. anything over 15" was taken. and the lakes obviously still had fish in them after that otherwise there would be none right now. the limit i am talking about is 1-3 fish under 15" and 1 over 25" anything in between 15"-25" would have to be released. i still have a copy of the regs from 1993 i should take some pics and post them or try to get a scan of it. how about the old limit of 10 pike no size limit. it is sad what a huge step back our fisheries took from the limits we had back then. like i said in my first post do not by into the too may fisherman bs. it is simply not true, u can use statistics to prove anything you want to. 15% of all people know that. lol

[Mutter87]

Sorry to say but if it was set-up and ran how I'm picturing it, you wouldn't make the cut based on your heated reactions to this thread. You've been flexing your digital muscles the whole time, I think you'd honestly do more damage than good out there. I appreciate your dedication but we don't need tough guys, we need diplomats and teachers out there.

Hope I didn't offend you, I'm just calling it as I see (and read) it.

Naw man, were good. I understand what you mean 110%.

[Wild&Free]

I just think that the idea has potential, it just needs to be designed by people more informed than myself. Without the "asking to see your catch" part I practice this same principle all the time. I've never been close to calling anyone in as I've never actually found (or was convinced) that anyone was poaching, it's usually just informing people of things they obviously didn't realize. I've also never even once thought the people were upset at me for what I did, probably because I tend to approach friendly people and leave the grumpy guys alone. I'll admit the idea needs a lot of work but I think it has potential, at the very least you'd end up with a better informed public.

I cut out a bit in the quote but i highlighted the important part. What you're doing here is being a good ambassador of the sport, I try to do the same without interfering in others personal enjoyment, and that is one of the aspects of this forum I enjoy the most. We encourage people to fish responsibly and help those out who just don't know. It's the ones who do know and choose to disregard the rules that are an issue and an unarmed volunteer is not going to have much success dealing with these people. There is a very good reason F&W officers are armed since most of the time they are dealing with armed individuals and groups. I'm not opposed to your idea, but imo, someone would need at least the equivalent of a technical diploma (2 years) for me to consider them remotely near educated enough to begin to do what you suggest and who is going to do that to be an unpaid volunteer?
I'm in agreement with increasing licensing costs slightly to get more 'real' Conservation Officers in the field. Or better yet, elect a government that actually supports the people, and their pursuit of happiness, not just the big business looking to take our resources for a profit and leave nothing behind. Of course that starts with each person educating themselves on the actions of the current gov't and the policies of those who run against them.

[addicted]

Tags are not the answer in my opinion. One under 14" lets say and one over 27" this leaves a huge spawning base and should keep a constant flow of under 14" fish and lots of large fish.

[schmedlap]

I've read through this entire thread, which just reinforces my view that the people who are on here really care about the resource and it's proper protection. Many excellent and perceptive comments and suggestions. I'd like to add my own.
As to the "volunteer" F & W, back in the late 80's I tried to promote that idea from within the "powers that be". I "volunteered" because of a couple of incidents that I experienced. I was, very rationally, shot down in flames over the issues of liability and risk. It came home to me when a buddy and I were fishing the NSR where it comes into Abraham Lake one day (in my old Zodiac with a "putt-putt" motor), and catching and releasing a number of small bulls (10-20") on a very legal basis. It was shortly after the government had put the "no bait" regs in for a number of such places, and the "0 limit" for bulls. Two trucks full of "fishermen" pulled up to the bank and commenced casting worms out into the current, hauling in the small bulls, and throwing them in buckets. Against the instincts and wise (as it turns out?) advice of my fishing partner, I headed over to "educate" the yardapes on the new regs. Thankfully, I didn't pull all the way in to the bank or get out, because they not only laughed me off, they started pitching rocks at us. Now, we did not have cell phones at that time. So, just being pretty ****ed (and luckily not having been hit in the skull with any of those rocks), I memorized the license numbers, and stopped in Nordegg on the way home to report them to the local authorities. Never heard anything, so I assume nothing happened (?). Regardless of whether I carried any "badge of authority" those idiots would have just tossed me in the river (or worse?), when I had no firepower or uniform to back me up. Another time, same general historical time period, we were at Brown Creek, and a young lad (13-14?) was catching, and keeping, some bigger bulls (up to 5-6 lbs) using steak/liver chunks on a hook. He was pretty proud of it, and his Dad was not amenable to my attempts to educate them on the disadvantages of that approach - had it not been for my (reluctant?) back up in sheer numbers of people, that ape probably would have beat the crap out of me. And, again, no way to "turn them in" quickly. I called it in when I got home, but, again, never heard further. Now, maybe times have changed, in the sense of instant communication options, but given the lack of real resouces devoted to such things ....?
The people who are the problem don't even pick up the regs, if they even buy a license, let alone read them - there is little chance of being caught and facing any actual enforcement. Even when the grossly overstretched F&W people do manage to catch these morons, the penalties are pretty lax, with few exceptions. The F&W people we do have, in my experience, are very dedicated and conscientious about their task - we need to give them way more resources. There is no point at all to regs you cannot enforce (?).
And, I am definitely a bit of a "libertarian" in terms of the government telling me what I can and cannot do. The current regs are complicated enough, for those who actually read them and try to comply (I suspect, from experience, a rather small percentage of the fishers out there?). The solution is not more complicated regs, but, rather, more education and enforcement!! I don't pretend to know how to do that in the current environment, but I will continue to bring these things to the attention of my MLA, and there are a number of good ideas in this thread. Sooner or later, if you keep "bugging" them, maybe there will be "our champion" in the legislature(?).
As to the issue of "keep" regulations, all I will say is that it has to be adaptive to the particular location and productivity. There are VERY few "over 100" pike left in locations where one can keep one of those, as the "limit". Who wants to eat a 20 year old Pike? Most such places offer a very easy option (often "bycatch" when one is pursuing the big gals) of keeping a couple of much tastier, and smaller, Walleye. I am just, frankly, almost sick when I see someone "filleting" one of those really big old Pike, just because (maybe?) they can't keep a 65 (still not wise, but ...?). There should be an absolute ban on removing those old girls, with their good genes (to survive and be available to catch, whether or not they still breed?) - no better thrill?), everywhere. Maybe it should extend to the really big Walleye too (I have eaten some 8-12 pounders out of Tobin - no matter what gloss you put on it, and the fact they grow so much faster there, they are not that great). My boys and I target big Pike, for the thrill of the catch, and would never for one instant think of killing one - the thrill of the catch and the picture are priceless. Who really needs the meat? I would feel very guilty indeed if I was unable to revive and release one of those magnificent fish. But, we are in this for the sport, not the meat, or the "glory" of showing off a huge frozen fish (?). The issue really is how do we "educate" the public, the people who currently don't give a damn about the health of our fisheries. and how do we actually enforce reasonable regs in a way that has some impact?

[pelada trochu]

I've read through this entire thread, which just reinforces my view that the people who are on here really care about the resource and it's proper protection. Many excellent and perceptive comments and suggestions. I'd like to add my own.
As to the "volunteer" F & W, back in the late 80's I tried to promote that idea from within the "powers that be". I "volunteered" because of a couple of incidents that I experienced. I was, very rationally, shot down in flames over the issues of liability and risk. It came home to me when a buddy and I were fishing the NSR where it comes into Abraham Lake one day (in my old Zodiac with a "putt-putt" motor), and catching and releasing a number of small bulls (10-20") on a very legal basis. It was shortly after the government had put the "no bait" regs in for a number of such places, and the "0 limit" for bulls. Two trucks full of "fishermen" pulled up to the bank and commenced casting worms out into the current, hauling in the small bulls, and throwing them in buckets. Against the instincts and wise (as it turns out?) advice of my fishing partner, I headed over to "educate" the yardapes on the new regs. Thankfully, I didn't pull all the way in to the bank or get out, because they not only laughed me off, they started pitching rocks at us. Now, we did not have cell phones at that time. So, just being pretty ****ed (and luckily not having been hit in the skull with any of those rocks), I memorized the license numbers, and stopped in Nordegg on the way home to report them to the local authorities. Never heard anything, so I assume nothing happened (?). Regardless of whether I carried any "badge of authority" those idiots would have just tossed me in the river (or worse?), when I had no firepower or uniform to back me up. Another time, same general historical time period, we were at Brown Creek, and a young lad (13-14?) was catching, and keeping, some bigger bulls (up to 5-6 lbs) using steak/liver chunks on a hook. He was pretty proud of it, and his Dad was not amenable to my attempts to educate them on the disadvantages of that approach - had it not been for my (reluctant?) back up in sheer numbers of people, that ape probably would have beat the crap out of me. And, again, no way to "turn them in" quickly. I called it in when I got home, but, again, never heard further. Now, maybe times have changed, in the sense of instant communication options, but given the lack of real resouces devoted to such things ....?
The people who are the problem don't even pick up the regs, if they even buy a license, let alone read them - there is little chance of being caught and facing any actual enforcement. Even when the grossly overstretched F&W people do manage to catch these morons, the penalties are pretty lax, with few exceptions. The F&W people we do have, in my experience, are very dedicated and conscientious about their task - we need to give them way more resources. There is no point at all to regs you cannot enforce (?).
And, I am definitely a bit of a "libertarian" in terms of the government telling me what I can and cannot do. The current regs are complicated enough, for those who actually read them and try to comply (I suspect, from experience, a rather small percentage of the fishers out there?). The solution is not more complicated regs, but, rather, more education and enforcement!! I don't pretend to know how to do that in the current environment, but I will continue to bring these things to the attention of my MLA, and there are a number of good ideas in this thread. Sooner or later, if you keep "bugging" them, maybe there will be "our champion" in the legislature(?).
As to the issue of "keep" regulations, all I will say is that it has to be adaptive to the particular location and productivity. There are VERY few "over 100" pike left in locations where one can keep one of those, as the "limit". Who wants to eat a 20 year old Pike? Most such places offer a very easy option (often "bycatch" when one is pursuing the big gals) of keeping a couple of much tastier, and smaller, Walleye. I am just, frankly, almost sick when I see someone "filleting" one of those really big old Pike, just because (maybe?) they can't keep a 65 (still not wise, but ...?). There should be an absolute ban on removing those old girls, with their good genes (to survive and be available to catch, whether or not they still breed?) - no better thrill?), everywhere. Maybe it should extend to the really big Walleye too (I have eaten some 8-12 pounders out of Tobin - no matter what gloss you put on it, and the fact they grow so much faster there, they are not that great). My boys and I target big Pike, for the thrill of the catch, and would never for one instant think of killing one - the thrill of the catch and the picture are priceless. Who really needs the meat? I would feel very guilty indeed if I was unable to revive and release one of those magnificent fish. But, we are in this for the sport, not the meat, or the "glory" of showing off a huge frozen fish (?). The issue really is how do we "educate" the public, the people who currently don't give a damn about the health of our fisheries. and how do we actually enforce reasonable regs in a way that has some impact?



Bravo. Well said. Risk to personal safety must be first. Triple or quadruple the license fee but not to general revenue. Specific to fisheries efforts. Your comments about the big girls are true. My fork only holds a bite at a time. They cant get to fifty if you take at forty. Etc.


One more thought that crossed my mind on slot sizes. With pike the males stop at 12lbs or so. Only females grow larger. So it would seem we could damage a fishery by slot sizing pike and over fishing the males accidentally . Im sure fisheries considered this but would like info on this aspect jfmoi. Also guys have stated that the large fish eat too much as a reason to take them. Well they dont eat minnow but spawn alot so i dont see the point. In addition grandma has a slow metabolism focused on saving energy. So i think its only the young adolescents who are burning up the calories.

[wind drift]

My memory doesn't remember the exact details on this but short 'harvest seasons" have been tried on a select few lakes in the past. Long Lake (walleye) near Boyle was one these lakes and I believe there a lake near St Paul as well. The harvest period was longer than the weekend you suggest,, (maybe a couple weeks?) ... Anyways the long and the short of it was angling pressure was concentrated (actually excessive) on these lakes during the open season and even with low limits, it didn't take long to harvest more fish than was desired. Perhaps someone with a better memory can enligthen us more on this.



You're memory is accurate. It was Long Lake and it was shocking how quickly the fishery was depleted in such a short time. I think that 'experiment' should be repeated every so often to remind us about how much potential pressure there is on our fisheries. Remember how badly collapsed our walleye populations were in the 80's? THAT was mismanagement! Alberta is in a unique situation. Fish-bearing waters are extremely few. They're unproductive compared to more southern locales. Humans are high in number and affluent, with time to fish. There are no access restrictions. We can fish anywhere there are fish to be caught. We expect to have high quantity and quality fishing pretty much everywhere. This scenario creates a tough situation for management. Despite all this, most of our collapsed walleye fisheries have recovered, some spectacularly. Pike and most trout are holding their own, with a few notable stars that likely rank with the best. We should be really worried about some fish like grayling and native rainbows, but I bet that's got more to do with land use than fishing. What we have now is not caused by poor science or management , but quite the opposite and it needs to be supported and strengthened. The situation is only going to get tougher.

[slough shark]

Reading through this thread I am seeing a number of ideas that are interesting and some that have merit and some that of course could use a little more work :). What I am seeing is people concerned for the quality and quantity of the fishery, which had me thinking what are some of the things that we could do to improve our fisheries aside from changing of some of the regulations on what we can keep etc... Some of the biggest issues with a number of lakes have to do with the fertility of the water, we need to work on individual lakes to improve the biomass that it is capable of holding. Sadly I suspect that this isn't going to be initiated at the government level, they simply don't have the will to put the necessary funds into doing this. An interesting concept I've thought of (albeit fairly undeveloped and rudimentary) is to create funds for individual lakes (with funding from private sources) that would hire biologists to study and moniter individual lakes and create a plans to increase the biomass. All the government would have to do is allow these plans to proceed after reviewing the proposal and then give the thumbs up. Some of these would be fairly simple (adding aerators) others would be a little more complex (working on the water quality so as to allow the lake to develop from the bottom up (plankton-invertebrates- forage minnows etc...) others would be habitat enhancement, water flow management in southern reservoirs, enhancing prey populations etc...) Either way I think if we were to work on the lakes we would end up with far better fisheries in the long run.