Walleye tags, class C be discontinued ?

[Kim473]

To me, there is no sense in having the class C tags. Under 43cm or 17" Just not enough meat on one that size with only 3 tags alowed. Wouldn't it make more sense to let them get a little bigger and thus creating more of the B size, 43 - 50 cm. And in ten years there would be more of the class A and B.
3 tags for the C, 17" or less = 1 meal for a family at the very most.
Maybe make the B class 40 to 50 cm. and eliminate the class C. Would make the regs a little simpler too. JMO.

What are your thoughts ?

[CK Angler]

No. I disagree completely, I don't like albertas walleye regs period, I wish they would open more lakes and implement slot sizes.. IMO if anything they should do away with class A and Encourage anglers to keep smaller fish and let the big girls go.

Ontario your allowed 1 only over 46cm with a possession limit of 4
MB only one over 55cm with a possession limit of 6
Sask only one over 55cm with a possession limit of 4

Alberta does things ass backwards.

[67ZL1]

I'm with CK on this one. A 17" walleye is a good eater. Maybe up the limit for a couple say 14"-17". It's worked in other provinces and States so why can't it work here? I know Alberta has a lot of pressure on it's lakes vs other places, but to me it seems wrong to be targeting the wrong year class. Let the prime spawners do their job.

[JustBen]

One of the best lakes I've fished had a slot size where no walleye from 45-65cm could be kept. We regularly catch and throw back lots of 50-60cm size fish, and go home with a healthy feed of fish under the slot size. If you can't get two good slabs of meat from a 17inch fish, you should revisit your filleting skills.

Those big fish are the baby makers. Let them keep the lakes full.

[EZM]

Again - we seem to want to compare Sask to Alberta when they have 10 times the # of lakes with 30% of the licenced fishermen.

That 30 times more pressure here - IF - the lakes were all the same size - which - they are not - Sask, by looking at a map (just a reasonable guess) seems to have 50 times the water we have here in Alberta - with 30% of the anglers - that's 150 times the pressure here. ( I realize that's not an exact and bullet proof estimate - but my point is the same).

There is no way a "general regulation" - weather it be tags in an area, or slot limits, or whatever is ever going to work here - the regulations MUST continue to be specific to the watershed.

I will, however, say the the ESRD needs to move a little quicker on changing stuff up and increasing limits (tags) on a few lakes (like Pigeon) where there a re 200 zillion stunted walleye in there and getting skinnier and smaller each year.

[CK Angler]

The only thing I wanted to point out in comparing to other provinces is that they only allow you to keep one over a certain length. I understand it's not apples to apples, but here in Alberta it's backwards. I spend the majority of my time fishing the Athabsca River, we catch numerous fish under 43cm that would be great for the table, but by law I have to release anything under 43cm. So if I get on a school of big girls I can legally keep them, which is what I don't agree with, and why I don't want to see class C tags discontinuned. Again, IMO if anything class A should go, and maybe an increase to the smaller class sizes ?

Alberta definitely needs to re think it's lake closures and slot sizes. but it seems like anglers have been saying this for years and it falls on deaf ears...

Atleast I'm lucky enough to keep fish in my region without tags, and have good enough angling ethics to know to release larger fish.

[Jamie Black R/T]

I like the C tags. Gotta have a sharp knife and some know-how though.

Doesn't take much to butcher a fish and lose your dinner to the scrap pile.

[huntsfurfish]

No. I disagree completely, I don't like albertas walleye regs period, I wish they would open more lakes and implement slot sizes.. IMO if anything they should do away with class A and Encourage anglers to keep smaller fish and let the big girls go.

Ontario your allowed 1 only over 46cm with a possession limit of 4
MB only one over 55cm with a possession limit of 6
Sask only one over 55cm with a possession limit of 4

Alberta does things ass backwards.

Alberta has reservoirs with 1 over 55. Just none under. Thats to help you get them to 55:)
Also has 50cm and 1 or 2 others sizes.
Only thing I would like to see is go to 1 walleye from 3 and 1 pike from 3 in reservoirs/waters that have a current 3 limit.
Not backwards at all. Thanks for making the point.;)


PS tired of comparing Ont, MB and Sask to Alberta, not even remotely close. 600 water bodies for Alberta 6000 for Sask. And more in MB and even more in Ontario.:)

[CK Angler]

Alberta has reservoirs with 1 over 55. Just none under. Thats to help you get them to 55:)
Also has 50cm and 1 or 2 others sizes.
Only thing I would like to see is go to 1 walleye from 3 and 1 pike from 3 in reservoirs/waters that have a current 3 limit.
Not backwards at all. Thanks for making the point.;)


PS tired of comparing Ont, MB and Sask to Alberta, not even remotely close. 600 water bodies for Alberta 6000 for Sask. And more in MB and even more in Ontario.:)



I'd rather it be under then over. Keep the larger breeding fish alive and develop more trophy lakes.

How man eggs is a 70cm walleye gonna lay compared to a 50cm?

[huntsfurfish]

And Id rather see them get to spawn.:)

[MathewsArcher]

Again - we seem to want to compare Sask to Alberta when they have 10 times the # of lakes with 30% of the licenced fishermen.

That 30 times more pressure here - IF - the lakes were all the same size - which - they are not - Sask, by looking at a map (just a reasonable guess) seems to have 50 times the water we have here in Alberta - with 30% of the anglers - that's 150 times the pressure here. ( I realize that's not an exact and bullet proof estimate - but my point is the same).

There is no way a "general regulation" - weather it be tags in an area, or slot limits, or whatever is ever going to work here - the regulations MUST continue to be specific to the watershed.

I will, however, say the the ESRD needs to move a little quicker on changing stuff up and increasing limits (tags) on a few lakes (like Pigeon) where there a re 200 zillion stunted walleye in there and getting skinnier and smaller each year.


Agree 100% - not sure why people continually want to compare AB to other jurisdictions. Implementing a slot would remove most fish before they ever reach spawning age with the limited resource we have in AB

[CK Angler]

Maybe Alberta is good the way it is then, and we're just a bunch of whiney fishermen lol

[MathewsArcher]

Might not be good the way it is but may be as good as it can get given how few lakes we have and how many fishermen

[JohninAB]

And Id rather see them get to spawn.:)

X2

All about recruitment into spawning size and how do you achieve that based on the fishing pressure the walleye lakes/reservoirs/rivers in Alberta receive and still allow fisherman to keep a few walleye other than by the use of a tag system at every waterbody. My understanding of the thought process behind 1 over 50cm as based on average growth rates here, a walleye of 43cm is roughly old enough to start spawning so let them spawn for a few years before ending up in the pan.

Or I am totally wrong and wasted 2 minutes of my life on this response.

[Barnes19]

Some stocked Walleye lakes are over populated with small Walleye, those lakes need to be controlled with Class C tags. Every Lake is different.

[huntsfurfish]

X2

All about recruitment into spawning size and how do you achieve that based on the fishing pressure the walleye lakes/reservoirs/rivers in Alberta receive and still allow fisherman to keep a few walleye other than by the use of a tag system at every waterbody. My understanding of the thought process behind 1 over 50cm as based on average growth rates here, a walleye of 43cm is roughly old enough to start spawning so let them spawn for a few years before ending up in the pan.

Or I am totally wrong and wasted 2 minutes of my life on this response.

John
I believe the 50cm is more a southern size limit vs 43 in the north. The 43 in the north will spawn at least once and in the south a 50 will spawn at least once. Just a little different growth rates. Both fish will be near 5 years old.

All walleye should legally get to spawn at least once before removal.
For those wanting to remove unders:
Fish under those sizes never get to spawn.:thinking-006:

[CK Angler]

I see it differently and respectfully disagree. I don't believe you should be removing established spawning fish from a system leaving smaller fish that don't have the ability to reproduce. It is proven that larger females produce more eggs, so to me removing them from that system is doing more damage.


just my 2 cents

[Ryan R]

To me, there is no sense in having the class C tags. Under 43cm or 17" Just not enough meat on one that size with only 3 tags alowed. Wouldn't it make more sense to let them get a little bigger and thus creating more of the B size, 43 - 50 cm. And in ten years there would be more of the class A and B.
3 tags for the C, 17" or less = 1 meal for a family at the very most.
Maybe make the B class 40 to 50 cm. and eliminate the class C. Would make the regs a little simpler too. JMO.

What are your thoughts ?

The part I don't understand is your profile pic.

I'm a big perch fan too, and that looks like a beauty, but surely it isn't 17" long and yet that was worth the meat, right?

If the point is that there aren't enough walleye to sustain that kind of a hit, then I could see the concern (although I agree with the other posters that leaving all the little ones doesn't actually make for a good population), but I can't quite understand the not-even-worth-it-for-the-meat angle, when we go after much smaller fish.

[EZM]

The part I don't understand is your profile pic.

I'm a big perch fan too, and that looks like a beauty, but surely it isn't 17" long and yet that was worth the meat, right?

If the point is that there aren't enough walleye to sustain that kind of a hit, then I could see the concern (although I agree with the other posters that leaving all the little ones doesn't actually make for a good population), but I can't quite understand the not-even-worth-it-for-the-meat angle, when we go after much smaller fish.

I can see both strategies with merits and both strategies with some shortfalls.

I firmly believe in order for us to understand weather a larger age class fish versus a younger (smaller) age class fish is a better candidate for harvest we better understand the lake (or the specific watershed more precisely).

A bio needs to put the time into that watershed and look at recruitment rates, a profile of the age class as a percentage of the total biomass, etc... etc....

One strategy simply won't work across the province .... that's my main point.

Unfortunately, the sad reality is we do not have the qualified resources to get this done as there really are only a handful of bios employed by the ESRD that are fisheries guys.

[huntsfurfish]

I see it differently and respectfully disagree. I don't believe you should be removing established spawning fish from a system leaving smaller fish that don't have the ability to reproduce. It is proven that larger females produce more eggs, so to me removing them from that system is doing more damage.


just my 2 cents

And removing fish before they spawn means they never will.:)

With the harvest over spawning size, every single fish spawns at least once before it can be removed. Much harder to crash the fishery this way. And even if it does, its quicker to recover.

The under size fishing needs to be closely monitored and is done with the tags so yes it could work under those conditions.

Alberta currently does not have the resources to monitor it closely. Putting under slots in is asking for trouble. Crashed fishery could take as much as 10 years to recover. How bad to you want that?

As it stands, some 70cm's can still spawn but so can all the 50's.

[bobalong]

And removing fish before they spawn means they never will.:)

With the harvest over spawning size, every single fish spawns at least once before it can be removed. Much harder to crash the fishery this way. And even if it does, its quicker to recover.

The under size fishing needs to be closely monitored and is done with the tags so yes it could work under those conditions.

Alberta currently does not have the resources to monitor it closely. Putting under slots in is asking for trouble. Crashed fishery could take as much as 10 years to recover. How bad to you want that?

As it stands, some 70cm's can still spawn but so can all the 50's.

Many of our lakes did crash and were closed for 10 years or more in some cases. Our problem in most lake is that there are not large enough numbers of walleye spawning to sustain the fishery, which is why the smaller fish are protected until them become spawning size/age.

Most lakes have very few large fish and removing a few them will not affect the population as much as taking hundreds or thousands of small fish. Small fish are much easier to catch as well, how times will you hear about anglers catching a 100 smaller fish 17 and under and maybe 1 or 2 larger ones. It is much more important to protect a large population of smaller fish until they grow to spawn than a handful of larger fish.

[huntsfurfish]

Many of our lakes did crash and were closed for 10 years or more in some cases. Our problem in most lake is that there are not large enough numbers of walleye spawning to sustain the fishery, which is why the smaller fish are protected until them become spawning size/age.

Most lakes have very few large fish and removing a few them will not affect the population as much as taking hundreds or thousands of small fish. Small fish are much easier to catch as well, how times will you hear about anglers catching a 100 smaller fish 17 and under and maybe 1 or 2 larger ones. It is much more important to protect a large population of smaller fish until they grow to spawn than a handful of larger fish.

I agree, there are some lakes that would still fall into your description.

General thought/rule is stocked fishes spawn must spawn if I remember correctly. Which works out to a min. 10 years

[edsonfisherman]

The one thing your all missing on is c class fish are under 43cm or 17", so a 17" walleye is not a legal fish but a 16" one is as its under 43cm or 17" as the tags are for fish under not to 43cm.

[huntsfurfish]

:)