Does it matter?

[Deano]

There has been alot of discussion on harvesting big fish. I may be wrong, but a fish is born with their "gene pool" determined. I may be wrong, but it shouldn't matter if it is their first, second, or tenth time spawning. I thought genes were hereditary (sp?). So do fish produce larger fish as they get older? I believe the females produce more eggs the larger they get, but I believe the "gene pool" doesn't change.
I may be out to lunch on this, but I am curious to know.

Deano

[Eyeswideshut]

I was told fish can only produce according to the area upon which they live in and the amount of food.

[Reeves1]

Alberta lakes have been fished, netted etc for well over 14,000 years. Fish are still in them and have not changed a lot in this time period.

I was catching, killing and eating big Pike in Gull back in the early 80s. The lake had 40lb Pike in it then, and still does.

[Kevin C.]

Sorry to answer a question with a question but does every fish have the potential for growing to larger sizes? If so then I dont see a problem, but if not by killing the largest fish you potentially reduce the ability for a lake or river to produce larger specimens. BTW this is purely speculation on my part.

[SNAPFisher]

Hey Deano.

I dunno about continuing this thread. [insert pic of flogging a dead horse here]

If it was another board, maybe so. Unfortunately there are some people on this board who will never respect the opinions of others and will take theirs as gospel.

Kudos to LilSundance on another thread for providing an excellent summation of a "thread gone bad".

[DoubleCam]

I beleive it is about age when it comes to size. Water quality, food sources, lake structure all plays a role on fish size aswell. Generally speaking... the less bigger fish the more eggs produced etc etc.

Also, as something to think about... why keep a big fish? most times they are the worst tasting anyhow..
Walleye for example, I would rather keepa 3lb eye than a 7lb plus. Pike is the same, trout especially.

Maybe that helpsout what u are thinking asking about...:huh:

[Don Andersen]

Guys,

You can genetically change any group of organisms by culling or selective breeding.
Breed blue eyed parents and most of the time you get blue eyed kids.
Ask any farmer how he gets larger yearlings. He certainly doesn't breed runts>runts.

And from an "Wild" perspective see:http://issues.albertawilderness.ca/WL/archive/AR0204WL2.pdf

Where the below was copied.

"Because horn size is partly inheritable, these results suggest that a harvest policy based on a minimum
horn curl may select for small-horned rams. A ram with fast-growing horns may reach 4/5-curl by 5 or
even 4 years of age, and risk being shot before his horns could help him secure high reproductive
success. A ram with slow-growing horns, on the other hand, may survive several rutting season with
lowered competition as many of his potential competitors with larger horns will have been shot. Over the
long term, this may select for small horns, exactly the opposite of the objectives of trophy hunting. Setting
the minimum horn size at full curl rather than at 4/5-curl should partly remedy this problem."

In my opinion, breed tiddlers you get tiddlers.

Don

[Tony_S]

Extremely complicated subject...

Yes, the genetics of one particular fish, and what that fish is capable of producing as far as physical traits (ie. size, color's, pattern's) is written in stone at conception. BUT....one particular fish can produce a myriad of different characteristics, depending on the mate's genetic pool. Some traits produced in the offspring may not even be visible in the parent fish (recessive genes)

Yes, a 18" Pike can pass along the genetics to grow a 48" Pike, without question.

Here's another angle on the whole issue though, one that typically isn't mentioned, but is just as, if not MORE important than the genetic side.

Physical properties, and numerical properties. An 18" Pike may produce 10,000 healthy eggs that are 1 mm in diameter in one spawn....while a 48" Pike may produce 100,000 eggs that are 2 mm in diameter. I just grabbed these numbers out of the air, so they may not be entirely accurate, but you get the idea.
That's the MAIN reason that larger fish are much more "successful" spawners, not just simply genetics.
10 times the numbers, and twice the size is HUGE in the world of survival!

Tony

[Okotokian]

Hey Deano.

I dunno about continuing this thread. [insert pic of flogging a dead horse here]

If it was another board, maybe so. Unfortunately there are some people on this board who will never respect the opinions of others and will take theirs as gospel.


Huh? :confused: I don't get it. The only post remotely controversial in this thread is yours.

[TundraBuck]

Extremely complicated subject...

Yes, the genetics of one particular fish, and what that fish is capable of producing as far as physical traits (ie. size, color's, pattern's) is written in stone at conception. BUT....one particular fish can produce a myriad of different characteristics, depending on the mate's genetic pool. Some traits produced in the offspring may not even be visible in the parent fish (recessive genes)

Yes, a 18" Pike can pass along the genetics to grow a 48" Pike, without question.

Here's another angle on the whole issue though, one that typically isn't mentioned, but is just as, if not MORE important than the genetic side.

Physical properties, and numerical properties. An 18" Pike may produce 10,000 healthy eggs that are 1 mm in diameter in one spawn....while a 48" Pike may produce 100,000 eggs that are 2 mm in diameter. I just grabbed these numbers out of the air, so they may not be entirely accurate, but you get the idea.
That's the MAIN reason that larger fish are much more "successful" spawners, not just simply genetics.
10 times the numbers, and twice the size is HUGE in the world of survival!

Tony

Exactly. As stated before, any fish of any sizes can be carrying the "right genes" with the potential to grow to 48", but only if it is given the chance. ((ex) C&R)

Don Andersen also nailed it. But it all comes back to releasing the big girls. They are capable of producing alot more eggs, and are a fine specimen to prove that the genetics in her are potentially monstrous.

[packhuntr]

I think you guys are discussing the wrong issues here. The real problem associated with keeping all the large fish in a system is not the reduction of genetically large fish. Where there are fish, in time there will be large ones if all requirements are met. Forage base, water depth and other factors control how large they grow. The problem lies with the removal of the larger of the predatory species. When you remove large fish (key players in managing the entire fishery) you create issues like overpopulations, reduced forage base and ultimately the stunting of an entire lake and fishery.
We have some serious issues with regards to how our fisheries are being regulated in this province, and blanket regs cannot possibly protect our fisheries here. Hence the fact that we have so many lakes either collapsed or on the verge of collapsing.
Removing even one or two large predators from a smaller fishery can be absolutely detrimental to the health of the entire fishery. It can have effects that last years. As we all know, it can take YEARS to grow a large predatory fish. Next time anyone thinks about clubbing a 15 plus year old 20lb pike, stop and think about the damage caused.

[TundraBuck]

I think you guys are discussing the wrong issues here. The real problem associated with keeping all the large fish in a system is not the reduction of genetically large fish. Where there are fish, in time there will be large ones if all requirements are met. Forage base, water depth and other factors control how large they grow. The problem lies with the removal of the larger of the predatory species. When you remove large fish (key players in managing the entire fishery) you create issues like overpopulations, reduced forage base and ultimately the stunting of an entire lake and fishery.
We have some serious issues with regards to how our fisheries are being regulated in this province, and blanket regs cannot possibly protect our fisheries here. Hence the fact that we have so many lakes either collapsed or on the verge of collapsing.
Removing even one or two large predators from a smaller fishery can be absolutely detrimental to the health of the entire fishery. It can have effects that last years. As we all know, it can take YEARS to grow a large predatory fish. Next time anyone thinks about clubbing a 15 plus year old 20lb pike, stop and think about the damage caused.

Excellent points. This is the big picture.

[Tony_S]

I think you guys are discussing the wrong issues here.

Not really the wrong issues....just some of the MANY issues involved. Fish management is a fairly complex web...not nearly as black and white as some make it out to be.
I fully agree with you though.

Tony

[rustynailz]

If we're really concerned about the state of fisheries, the best thing to do would be to stop fishing them completely. I think that we can all agree that doing so is probably a step too far.

As I said in my other post, I always release large pike. I do so, to be quite honest, because I've heard from many people that it's the "right" thing to do. I went icefishing at least 15 or 18 times last year and in almost all circumstances released every fish I caught.

But honestly, all I've heard in any of these posts is a bunch of what people think, and almost no real science.

What it boils down to is pretty straightforward to me. A few years ago you could fish pike year round and kill 10 of any size. The provincial biologists, who you'd have to assume know as much if not vastly more than any of us recreational anglers, decided on the following:
-reduce the limit to three fish
-implement a minimum size limit to ensure that fish get a chance to spawn before they are harvested
-close pike fishing in the spawning season to ensure that the large fish are protected when they're much more likely to be caught

The real issue that's at hand here is simple: is the harvest of the occasional large spawning size pike detrimental to the population enough that either
-anglers should always release all pike over some arbitrary size (someone said 32"), or
-regulations should be changed and restricted further to completely prevent harvesting of all large pike

The goal of Alberta's fishery management program is really quite simple: provide a sustainable harvest of fish for anglers who like to consume their catch while providing opportunities for anglers to catch quality fish. Don Andersen has said that any fish over 50% of the record could be considered "quality" and I tend to agree. For pike, that means a fish over 19 pounds, which for the sake of argument is going to be around 40".

I would fully support any regulation change if it were backed by science. So here goes: why is another change to the regs required if
a) the bios didn't see it necessary to implement something similar a few years back
b) the province (esp the south part) grows "quality" pike on a regular basis in dozens of fisheries
c) most fisheries are fished very lightly considering their size
d) we can't even enforce the regulations we have

I would really appreciate intelligent rational discussion about this instead of the usual degeneration that occurs on the internet.

[Tony_S]

The real issue that's at hand here is simple: is the harvest of the occasional large spawning size pike detrimental to the population enough that either
-anglers should always release all pike over some arbitrary size (someone said 32"), or
-regulations should be changed and restricted further to completely prevent harvesting of all large pike

IMO, no...the "occasional" harvest of large breeding females would not be detrimental. Unfortunately there's a lot of anglers out there that don't understand the definition of "occasional" (and don't give a rats azz either). I think the only way to even remotely enforce that would be a tagging system similar to the Walleye program we have now.

Tony

[Deano]

I figured this thread would get some controversy. Thanks Tony_S for giving an answer to the question I did ask which was about genetics. Very well written as well Tony_S.
The thing that gets me going is having people rant because others do, they are like band wagon jumpers. Someone posts a pic of a bigger fish being kept, a few say "thanks for the post and pics", and a bunch of others go off. I get the impression most of the guys that complain about "hurting the gene pool" have no idea what they are talking about. Genetics are set at birth, you are born with them. In my uneducated opinion most of the self sustaining lakes would have very few "gene pools". I feel food source and habitat have alot more to do with the size of predator fish than genes do.
It is very easy for some internet bully to sit behind his computer and berate a 16 year old kid for keeping a 16lb Pike. Telling him he is killing the fishery and hurting the gene pool, when the truth is he doesn't even know what he is talking about. He just happen to read a couple of other people post the same thing. It makes me wonder if a few of these people are from the same gene pool :huh:.
One last question: when was the last time someone realeased a 14" Perch because it was the best thing to do for gene pool?

Deano

[packhuntr]

Now thats something that I would absolutely put my money forth to do. 5 tags for pike for the year, throw a 10 dollar price on the tags, and slot size them across the board. Make the monies actually go to figheries research. Thinking outloud there, so please dont threaten to shoot me if you see me on the ice or anything. If Science is what you want, do some research into what constitutes a stunted lake Rustynailz. Its a huge problem in the U.S. and its going to become a huge problem here in Alberta.

[OutwardBound]

Being new to the whole fishing in Alberta thing (coming from Ontario) and actually fishing on my own without much guidance I have been following these threads quite closely.

I totally agree with the apparant need for a slot size as it appears there are a lot of people taking the big spawning females. I was educated on the slot size growing up fishing in NWO as it was a question I remember asking when I had to throw the 'big ones' back as a kid, but didn't really understand it fully. Here ppl take the big ones bc they can, not really knowing the theory behind a slot size or the benefits of throwing them back, and bc it is your best bang for your buck, so to speak. Esp those that I have talked to who were accustomed to being able to take 10 pike before at any size now feel 'short changed' by the gov and now want to bring home the most meat they can for that fish fry. This is JMHO but I do think that as more people lobby Morton the fisheries management will be evaluated and hopefully improved upon, but until then those big girls will probably see more plates than being c&r.

I have learnt a ton more about our fisheries through these posts and enjoy the educated banter. Slamming doesn't get the point across and just makes more people gun shy about sharing, but these intelligent posts with information being passed on may help out the waters more than you think.

Last yr my brother's gf (new to fishing here too) caught a 37inch pike and they both wanted to keep her, after me explaining the breeding and ecosystem affects she was safely released to see another day, but if it weren't for this board I think she would have been on our plates.

Does anyone have any clear data as to why ab doesn't have a slot size? I know overall it's a good thing, but is there maybe a reason why we don't?

Also, really when is a fish too big to be beneficial to a lake, or is that possible and when do they stop being productive spawners?

Danni

[packhuntr]

A fish such as a big pike does its best work for the entire fishery as a big fish. These monsters are nothing more than baby making machines, that is a big hens job. They protect their eggs, stage up adjacent to the spawning redds in post spawn, and move onto doing their other job for the rest of the year as a regulating predator. They eat their own kind, ie; keep predator numbers in check, as in any ecosystem they are supposed to have the lowest numbers, and they also regulate other species. A healthy closed system, like what we have in alot of cases in Alberta HAS TO HAVE BIG PIKE if they are native to the system. That means if ya get lucky and catch one, release her immediately. These big fish are the most sensitive and vulnerable of any fish you could catch in any of our lakes. They stress and injure very easily, and need to be handled properly and quickly. This subject could be talked about till the cows come home. It is imperative that these big fish be released,,, its for the good of the entire fishery.

[TundraBuck]

Packhuntr is making some excellent posts. You guys need to listen and stop challenging everything.

[OutwardBound]

Tundra, I wasn't challenging, just wanted some more info....

[happy perch fisher]

I personal bielve any pike bewteen 30inchesto44inches sould be released. Then anything over 44 can be kept for a mount.

[Lethalconnection]

One last question: when was the last time someone realeased a 14" Perch because it was the best thing to do for gene pool?

Deano


DING DING DING!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!

Ive noticed there are more then a few of us on here that are all about protecting the big pike but what about the other species??

I never hear of people releasing big perch/trout/burbot/whitefish etc, etc. Unless the regulations say they have too. They are just as important as a big pike, they as well will most likely be the big females that are the baby makin machines all in all keeping the big females is really never the greatest idea as hard as it is to resist to some of us it has to happen in order to keep our fisheries healthy and resourceful.

Danni fish do become unproductive at a certain size and age but that will vary from species and body of water, there are averages you can find somewhere im sure on the net but when they become unproductive those are usually some MONSTER fish and prolly arent the best eating but the best mounting;)

[rustynailz]

I never hear of people releasing big perch/trout/burbot/whitefish etc, etc. Unless the regulations say they have too. They are just as important as a big pike, they as well will most likely be the big females that are the baby makin machines all in all keeping the big females is really never the greatest idea as hard as it is to resist to some of us it has to happen in order to keep our fisheries healthy and resourceful.

Very good point.

As far as I'm concerned, there are LOTS of big pike around despite the fact that most that are caught are bonked on the head and taken home. I know personally of at least 6 fish over 40" that have been killed since August. How many egg-laden hawgs are killed at Badger every year, not even counting the C&R morts (which are higher when baitfishing regardless of how you slice it).

The reason for this is that most large pike are simply not caught by anglers in the course of a regular season. Let's take Keho as an example, because the Alberta record was caught there. Keho is close to Lethbridge and gets its share of Calgary pressure too. It's a fairly shallow lake. I've fished it a fair bit and 95% of the pressure is at the inlet and outlet canals. However, the lake's total surface area is over 3700 acres - that's nearly 6 square miles. Even on a really busy day, Keho might see a couple of dozen guys. Most days it sees under a dozen. Factor in the weekday pressure, the fact that many guys don't rig up properly, the two lines rule, etc, and it starts to become clear that the lake isn't really getting pressured that hard. The springtime used to see a lot of big dead females because they all move into the shallow bays to spawn. You can't fish them at that time anymore as a result.

I'd totally support a tag for big pike retention - not because I would want to kill one, but because I'd like to see what the actual harvest numbers look like.

I agree with packhuntr's comments. But if you want to follow that through to its conclusion, none of us should be fishing - especially with multiple large baited trebles. Anyone who's fished pike long enough will have guthooked a few that they didn't want to keep. If there are enough large females in the system, killing a few of them will make no difference. There has to be a balance between having the perfect pike populations and allowing license buying anglers to harvest the odd big fish. After eating some of that 43" fish beside a 27" fish, I'll gladly say that the "not good to eat" argument is a load of crap. The larger fish had more flavor and firmer flesh but was every bit as delicious as its younger buddy.

Again, a really simple question: if big pike are so critical to the fishery, why didn't the bios crack down on their harvest when they changed the regs?

[Don Andersen]

There are 2 issues here:

1] Is the fish genetically able to reach large size?
2] is the lake capable of supplying the resources to raise large fish?

If you have #2 you may attain a goal of larger fish BUT, if you do not have #1, this is no possibility.

What must be remembered, lakes are essentially a closed environment. What you have is what you get. There is little likelihood of transport of genes from an outside source.

Rivers, of course, allow the movement of genetic traits to some degree. Thermal barriers and now power/irrigation dams tend to stop the transfer.


regards,


Don

[packhuntr]

Im not sure that genetics is going to play much of a role here. The bodies of water that have pike all have and do grow monster pike. The biggest factor in attaining these sizes is time. It takes years to grow them to 40 inch. When we start talking about a 50 inch northern, we are talking about a true monster. As a rule they just dont get any bigger than that, period. There are slow growing pike, and fast growing pike. Where they fit into this whole thing im not sure, but no doubt its part of that puzzle somehow, maybe?? With the status of some of our more fished lakes, where a day on the water yeilds a bunch of bait chewed up and a whole bunch of little guys, with very few getting into even what would go legal, there is a huge problem. Our regs should be shooting for a harvest of as many small pike as possible, while being periodically monitored. These lakes are in trouble. Now im talking while ice fishing here, and in turf that should be producing a mix of small and real nice stuff. In the summer, most folks dont know how to access and catch the hogs, they all seem to fish the shallow bays, and that is what pike fishing is to them, a whole bunch of little guys, aqnd its a blast for sure, but the big girls arent there. Ice fishing, can produce some monsters that go nearly unattainable all year for most folks. What im saying is that when you arent catching good ones in good turf, there is a problem, and it is over harvest. These situations should see a closure immediately, and i know a couple local lakes in this situation. Shut down a harvest of anything overwhat we have as legal now, and harvest a very good portion under that. Like i said, with periodical monitoring. I think that is the only way to bring a lake back from a stunted state????? As far as the other species like whitefish, burbs perch etc, prey species are supposed to be in higher numbers in any habitat. Im not sure that catching and keeping the slammer whitefish is going to damage them at all. Commercial fishing has been going on for years, yet still the whitefish remains a stable and viable forage base for our predators. The problem there lies with the harvest of non target species. As far as perch, another prey species that breed like rabbits. Not hurting them by harvesting. The one thing here I beleive is that a healthy fishery is going to have a somewhat protected predatory species. They are so vulnerable in a fishery with a normal healthy state it isnt funny. We all know how easy it is to take advantage of their predatory instincts, and they are supposed to be in lower numbers. That means a harvest of any slammers can severely disrupt the balance in that system.

[fourpoint]

I have a question on this ,gene pool and habitat i believe are a deciding factor in this but in other spieces of animals other than fish we cull animals do to age believing that at a certian age that they no longer produce the healthiest animals and are a drian on the system for other younger animals or fish comming along so would not removing some of the larger fish help to support a healthier and larger animal or fish population or ii am i looking at this the wrong way ,curious

[Tony_S]

I have a question on this ,gene pool and habitat i believe are a deciding factor in this but in other spieces of animals other than fish we cull animals do to age believing that at a certian age that they no longer produce the healthiest animals and are a drian on the system for other younger animals or fish comming along so would not removing some of the larger fish help to support a healthier and larger animal or fish population or ii am i looking at this the wrong way ,curious

Anything but scientific....but...

Up until about 5 years ago, I bred and sold a myriad of tropical fish (for aprox 15 years) and I'm fairly comfortable saying that after a fish reaches a certain age, "over the hill" so to speak, the NUMBER of eggs any given female (regardless of species) produces can and will drop dramatically. But the QUALITY of the offspring does not. Same can be said of males...sperm counts drop dramatically with age, and they have a difficult time fertilizing a spawn.

Tony

[TundraBuck]

Tundra, I wasn't challenging, just wanted some more info....

This was moreso directed at Deano.

[TundraBuck]

I personal bielve any pike bewteen 30inchesto44inches sould be released. Then anything over 44 can be kept for a mount.

Bingo this is what I have been saying. Or somehwere along these lines. This is what is known as a slot size limit, and is implemented in most of the provinces to our east. Then for most people, when they do catch that "fish of a lifetime" they have the option to take it for mounting.

Some people catch their fair share of pike over 40 inches every season, myself being one of them (Lots in the 36 - 40" range too). Personally with me, once I do get that fish of a lifetime (Pike over 45" and Walleye over 32") I will likely have replica mounts done. I would be honored to raise a fish that size from water, and would be more honored to let it live another day.