Amateur walleye slay and rant

[Brandonkop]

Walleye fishing can be entertaining as they are a very aggressive predator and often take various sorts of presentations. After they have eaten everything in the lake they also become very easy to catch. This occurs is some lakes across their range, but especially in Alberta where fisheries biologists have determined that walleye now takes precidence above all else, even where it was not naturally found. Once walleye have decimated the bait fish population, including perch, the pike also die off. Soon you're left with a lake full of stunted walleye. Since these walleye are competing for minimal food source they become very easy to catch. Most anyone can catch them, but legally only treaty natives and special tag holders can harvest the fish.

I've done some reading and research on usa fisheries and they manage their populations much better for size and diversity. They actually often increase walleye catch limits and decrease or increase the size or slot restrictions. Regulation changes are dynamic on a year to year basis depending or surveys and test netting. Imagine that. Fisheries that actually consider biodiversity! I'm pretty sure my biology 101 expressed the importance of biodiversity and predator prey relationships better than we have seen demonstrated in the great Province of Alberta.

Anyways during the course of this day out with my family we easily caught many walleye. Using these techniques though you will likely be able to catch walleye anywhere they swim. Good luck.

https://youtu.be/lJKImVbrOuc

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[HowSwedeItIs]

Yeah I can think of a few lakes that can be written off in the near future for exactly that reason. It makes you wonder, why? What's the point of ruining a fishery like that? The only guys who benefit are the ones stretching their nets out every weekend

That all being said, looks like it was a nice day out on the water

[pikeman06]

Bang on Brandon. Sad state of affairs in alberta management wise. I find the walleye lakes with lots of private docks and cabins are starting to come around. Thanks to all the locals whacking the odd walleye and sneaking them home. If that's the kind of management that works then so be it. Waste of breath complaining about it anymore, it's way too late to establish a decent brood stock of pike or perch in most of these lakes.

[The Spank]

So start keeping them and eating them! :bad_boys_20:

[Brandonkop]

So start keeping them and eating them! :bad_boys_20:
Haha, as much as I would love to sometime I just can't bring myself to cross the line an enter the realm of poacher. I'd rather try to influence people and government to take a second look at what is happening. Maybe I'll write a letter to the minister.

[Jigger]

Walleye fishing can be entertaining as they are a very aggressive predator and often take various sorts of presentations. After they have eaten everything in the lake they also become very easy to catch. This occurs is some lakes across their range, but especially in Alberta where fisheries biologists have determined that walleye now takes precidence above all else, even where it was not naturally found. Once walleye have decimated the bait fish population, including perch, the pike also die off. Soon you're left with a lake full of stunted walleye. Since these walleye are competing for minimal food source they become very easy to catch. Most anyone can catch them, but legally only treaty natives and special tag holders can harvest the fish.

I've done some reading and research on usa fisheries and they manage their populations much better for size and diversity. They actually often increase walleye catch limits and decrease or increase the size or slot restrictions. Regulation changes are dynamic on a year to year basis depending or surveys and test netting. Imagine that. Fisheries that actually consider biodiversity! I'm pretty sure my biology 101 expressed the importance of biodiversity and predator prey relationships better than we have seen demonstrated in the great Province of Alberta.

Anyways during the course of this day out with my family we easily caught many walleye. Using these techniques though you will likely be able to catch walleye anywhere they swim. Good luck.

https://youtu.be/lJKImVbrOuc

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Great post! My favorite lake has been ruined by walleye, unless you like catching 50 18inch walleye a day and releasing them all.

[Fishwhere]

Couldnt agree more. Some minor upsides to getting the kids and new fisherman into some walleye easily, but on the grand scale a waste and mismanagment indeed. Wabamun being the saddest... how to demolish a trophy pike lake in 5 years 101.

Nice post

Ps i like your vids - nice job!

[Kurt505]

Walleye fishing can be entertaining as they are a very aggressive predator and often take various sorts of presentations. After they have eaten everything in the lake they also become very easy to catch. This occurs is some lakes across their range, but especially in Alberta where fisheries biologists have determined that walleye now takes precidence above all else, even where it was not naturally found. Once walleye have decimated the bait fish population, including perch, the pike also die off. Soon you're left with a lake full of stunted walleye. Since these walleye are competing for minimal food source they become very easy to catch. Most anyone can catch them, but legally only treaty natives and special tag holders can harvest the fish.

I've done some reading and research on usa fisheries and they manage their populations much better for size and diversity. They actually often increase walleye catch limits and decrease or increase the size or slot restrictions. Regulation changes are dynamic on a year to year basis depending or surveys and test netting. Imagine that. Fisheries that actually consider biodiversity! I'm pretty sure my biology 101 expressed the importance of biodiversity and predator prey relationships better than we have seen demonstrated in the great Province of Alberta.

Anyways during the course of this day out with my family we easily caught many walleye. Using these techniques though you will likely be able to catch walleye anywhere they swim. Good luck.

https://youtu.be/lJKImVbrOuc

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


I brought up the same facts earlier this summer and was ridiculed by a few members here who figure its best just to go with zero retention, or to keep the limit at sizes nearly unattainable size, not realizing there can be a stunted population.

Nice to see there is some on board who realize the need for diversity in our lakes, and how diversity is managed.

[SNAPFisher]

I brought up the same facts earlier this summer and was ridiculed by a few members here who figure its best just to go with zero retention, or to keep the limit at sizes nearly unattainable size, not realizing there can be a stunted population.

Nice to see there is some on board who realize the need for diversity in our lakes, and how diversity is managed.

What I recall is that you were called for other things and ideas that you no longer seem to support. Now you just twist the argument back to something we can all agree on, biodiversity is good indeed but that doesn't mean a 1 fish keep limit everywhere makes biodiversity :). Since you keep continuously bringing up these so called arguments, I thought it was worth recanting why it might of went a bit off the rails for you.

I don't know of anyone on this board that doesn't want more diversity and anyone who would want stunted fish. You seem to think these members exist somewhere but I don't know of any.

So we agree on biodiversity. Maybe not exactly on how to manage it on every point but agree on a better end state of things.

[Kurt505]

What I recall is that you were called for other things and ideas that you no longer seem to support. Now you just twist the argument back to something we can all agree on, biodiversity is good indeed but that doesn't mean a 1 fish keep limit everywhere makes biodiversity :). Since you keep continuously bringing up these so called arguments, I thought it was worth recanting why it might of went a bit off the rails for you.

I don't know of anyone on this board that doesn't want more diversity and anyone who would want stunted fish. You seem to think these members exist somewhere but I don't know of any.

So we agree on biodiversity. Maybe not exactly on how to manage it on every point but agree on a better end state of things.


I think you have a problem with your recall button, and like last time I see no use in trying to explain things to you because there seems to be a problem with your comprehension button. Honestly, if you showed any possibility of compression I would gladly discuss the topic with you, but you have once again proven that's just not in the cards for you.

Maybe this thread will spawn a glimmer of hope for you.

[SNAPFisher]

I think you have a problem with your recall button, and like last time I see no use in trying to explain things to you because there seems to be a problem with your comprehension button. Honestly, if you showed any possibility of compression I would gladly discuss the topic with you, but you have once again proven that's just not in the cards for you.

Maybe this thread will spawn a glimmer of hope for you.

Such anger and hurt... someone needs a hug.

I'm sorry we agree on better fishing and biodiversity. Have a nice day.

[huntsfurfish]

What I recall is that you were called for other things and ideas that you no longer seem to support. Now you just twist the argument back to something we can all agree on, biodiversity is good indeed but that doesn't mean a 1 fish keep limit everywhere makes biodiversity :). Since you keep continuously bringing up these so called arguments, I thought it was worth recanting why it might of went a bit off the rails for you.

I don't know of anyone on this board that doesn't want more diversity and anyone who would want stunted fish. You seem to think these members exist somewhere but I don't know of any.

So we agree on biodiversity. Maybe not exactly on how to manage it on every point but agree on a better end state of things.

Agree. You got it right. And if Brandon wants to get things changed he should try and get more money for them.

[Kurt505]

Without naming names I flushed them out.

Thanks guys.

Now tell him your master plan :sHa_sarcasticlol:

SNAP, get over it, enough of the grade school pm's. If you want to pick a fight come on out and give your plan in detail instead of your "ya butch, ya butch, whatever he said is my plan" response. If I thought you could keep up to speed with a discussion and actually give a response that was on topic I would engage with you, but spawning whitefish in Manitoba, or brook trout on the eastern slopes, have nothing to do with walleye retention in northern Alberta.

[huntsfurfish]

Without naming names I flushed them out.

Thanks guys.

Now tell him your master plan :sHa_sarcasticlol:

SNAP, get over it, enough of the grade school pm's. If you want to pick a fight come on out and give your plan in detail instead of your "ya butch, ya butch, whatever he said is my plan" response. If I thought you could keep up to speed with a discussion and actually give a response that was on topic I would engage with you, but spawning whitefish in Manitoba, or brook trout on the eastern slopes, have nothing to do with walleye retention in northern Alberta.

How little you learned.:)

Sorry OP. last post. All yours Kurt.

[dmcbride]

I don't know enough about this topic to make an informed opinion.

I will say, I dislike walleye stocking. I use to like fishing pigeon lake for pike. Caught a 26lb. 20 years ago. Now it is nothing but pike under 6lb. and walleye around 5lb. Might as well go to a fish farm.

[sns2]

Play nice boys. Derailing threads is an infraction. I suggest you acquaint yourselves with the ignore function. It will save us all a headache.

[Kurt505]

How little you learned.:)

Sorry OP. last post. All yours Kurt.

By all means, enlighten us. You and snap seem to have it figured out, but you haven't come out and said your master plan. I haven't heard anything other than "let's just keep it as catch and release".

When another poster came on here with a case study that proves slot sizes work, you guys denied it could work in Alberta....

So other than throwing money at bio's and throwing all the fish back, what's your secret plan because I'd love to hear it.

[huntsfurfish]

By all means, enlighten us. You and snap seem to have it figured out, but you haven't come out and said your master plan. I haven't heard anything other than "let's just keep it as catch and release".

When another poster came on here with a case study that proves slot sizes work, you guys denied it could work in Alberta....

So other than throwing money at bio's and throwing all the fish back, what's your secret plan because I'd love to hear it.

Then you were not listening.:)

Start a new thread. We were warned.

sorry once again Brandon.

[Kurt505]

We were asked to be respectful and not to derail, if you can't do it on this thread, it won't matter how many threads I start.

Read my first post.

I was agreeing with the system Brandon brought up, agreeing about the failed attempts at fish management in Alberta that have in the process both stunted fish and destroyed populations of other native game fish that were deemed not important by the guys making the rule book. I told him I was happy to see that there were others on the forum who shared that pov.

I don't mind discussing things, but from our last discussion on the matter it's obvious that even proof is no match for a closed mind, that's why I see no sense in discussing it with some members.

If you have a plan, I'd love to hear about it. If your going to deny facts and case studies that actually work, then there's no sense in having a discussion.

[huntsfurfish]

We were asked to be respectful and not to derail, if you can't do it on this thread, it won't matter how many threads I start.

Read my first post.

I was agreeing with the system Brandon brought up, agreeing about the failed attempts at fish management in Alberta that have in the process both stunted fish and destroyed populations of other native game fish that were deemed not important by the guys making the rule book. I told him I was happy to see that there were others on the forum who shared that pov.

I don't mind discussing things, but from our last discussion on the matter it's obvious that even proof is no match for a closed mind, that's why I see no sense in discussing it with some members.

If you have a plan, I'd love to hear about it. If your going to deny facts and case studies that actually work, then there's no sense in having a discussion.

You really need to go revisit that other thread. You do remember that the case that was brought up by the other poster. They decided to go with albertas policy because what they were doing(slots) wasnt working.:)

Much of what you are complaining about is being addressed now.

Throwing money at it is not only what is required, but would go a long way to help with making changes that you want.

I believe in Brandons OP he mentioned that the States(not sure which one he is referring too) test net yearly. Here I believe it is a 5 year rotation. Cant do that without money. Be darned if I will support something(slots) that would risk the fishery with 5 year intervals. That would/could lead to crashes
that would have recovery periods in excess of 10 years. Pressured lakes might be able to handle some tags(a slot) because of limited numbers.
Distant lakes with little to no pressure might be ok, but 5 years might be to long there as well.

Allowing fish to spawn once before removal may/may not be the best solution but it is with the current testing.

Years ago walleye anglers yelled the loudest. They got the grease.
But from what I have seen that is being corrected now and they are looking towards other species that have suffered.

Most of this was covered in the other threads.

The issue I have with them is the slow reaction with limits. Would be better imho to reduce limits much quicker(preemptive) rather than reactive.

[Kurt505]

You really need to go revisit that other thread.

Much of what you are complaining about is being addressed now.



There is actually quite a bit more I agree with in your last post than I expected, however I strongly agree with these points I did revisit the last thread, and I suggest you do too just for a refresher.


The fact that much of what I was complaining about is finally now being addressed should tell you that maybe my points are valid!

Don't be surprised if they find some of my ideas as being valid solutions.

[huntsfurfish]

There is actually quite a bit more I agree with in your last post than I expected, however I strongly agree with these points I did revisit the last thread, and I suggest you do too just for a refresher.


The fact that much of what I was complaining about is finally now being addressed should tell you that maybe my points are valid!

Don't be surprised if they find some of my ideas as being valid solutions.

Your primary point if I remember is/was slots.

What was the name of the other thread?

[Kurt505]

Your primary point if I remember is/was slots.

What was the name of the other thread?

I don't remember the name, I searched it using the word Manitoba!!! Lol!

I suggested opening up walleye retention province wide to a slot size to help take the pressure off of the few lakes that allow general retention. After seeing that there was like 4 lakes in southern Alberta, admittedly I have never fished southern Alberta, I figured a tag system was probably best there.

The premise of my thoughts are that the walleye in a lot of lakes in Alberta are over populated and need to be thinned out in order to have a healthy balance of species, with a proper growth rate (not stunted).

[huntsfurfish]

I don't remember the name, I searched it using the word Manitoba!!! Lol!

I suggested opening up walleye retention province wide to a slot size to help take the pressure off of the few lakes that allow general retention. After seeing that there was like 4 lakes in southern Alberta, admittedly I have never fished southern Alberta, I figured a tag system was probably best there.

The premise of my thoughts are that the walleye in a lot of lakes in Alberta are over populated and need to be thinned out in order to have a healthy balance of species, with a proper growth rate (not stunted).


:) Found them. Now you can reread them.:);)

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=327829

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=325613

[Kurt505]

:) Found them. Now you can reread them.:);)

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=327829

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=325613

I read them

Did you read EVERYONE'S posts?

Sometimes guys only select the posts they want to read.

[huntsfurfish]

I read them

Did you read EVERYONE'S posts?

Sometimes guys only select the posts they want to read.

Hmm. Thats exactly what I was thinking about you. lol

[Kurt505]

Hmm. Thats exactly what I was thinking about you. lol

At least we're finally finding common ground.

My suggestion is to open up more walleye retention with an attainable slot size limit, at lakes like south buck, pigeon, wabamun (if they're not toxic), lac ate Anne, lac la none, just to name a few.

What's yours?

[huntsfurfish]

Could maybe open to Tags.:)

[Kurt505]

Could open to Tags.:)

More retention?

I'm glad to hear that :)

[huntsfurfish]

Pigeon and Lac St Anne are on tags already. so you are part way there already.:)

[huntsfurfish]

Wanting slots on some lakes without a way to control and oversee them is not good. Just what you posted on previous threads and was countered. Just sayin.

[Kurt505]

Could maybe open to Tags.:)

Pigeon and Lac St Anne are on tags already. so you are part way there already.:)

Gotta bump up the number of tags, there isn't enough walleye being taken out to correctly manage the balance.

[Kurt505]

Wanting slots on some lakes without a way to control and oversee them is not good. Just what you posted on previous threads and was countered. Just sayin.

It doesn't matter what laws are in place if there's no way to oversee them, that's pretty much a moot point.

[huntsfurfish]

Gotta bump up the number of tags, there isn't enough walleye being taken out to correctly manage the balance.

Doesnt have to be done overnight. Balance will come young jedi.:);)

[huntsfurfish]

It doesn't matter what laws are in place if there's no way to oversee them, that's pretty much a moot point.

Thats why you need more funding. More funding more test netting= quicker to see changes.

At least the way it is there is less chance of collapsing the fishery.

[Kurt505]

Thats why you need more funding. More funding more test netting= quicker to see changes.

At least the way it is there is less chance of collapsing the fishery.

Seems the only fishery they're worried about collapsing is the walleye, with pike and perch just a formality.

[Brandonkop]

Seems the only fishery they're worried about collapsing is the walleye, with pike and perch just a formality.

That right there is the key! That's what annoys me.

In California an environmental group, "Center for Biological Diversity" launched a lawsuit against California Department of Fish and Game for stocking trout without consideration of biodiversity and the impact of stocking on other species. They sorta won and the DFG stopped stocking trout in a lot of lakes and streams for this reason and had to do more research on environmental impact before future stocking. (not that I like the outcome as a fishermen because this group was trying to save some yellow legged mountain frog which I don't really care to climb a mountain to see, but that aside).

I think this is what we need in Alberta. A class action lawsuit to show that the governments fisheries management strategies have destroyed and changed native fish populations. That native perch and pike are now collapsed. Hopefully it would stop them from stocking walleye in more lakes where they don't belong. Maybe even allow us to fish the walleye out of wabamun and get it back to a trophy pike fishery.

Just need a leader. Must be some lawyer out there who knows how this stuff works and likes fishing... and wouldn't mind some volunteer moments to think if its a possibility.

[Kurt505]

That right there is the key! That's what annoys me.

In California an environmental group, "Center for Biological Diversity" launched a lawsuit against California Department of Fish and Game for stocking trout without consideration of biodiversity and the impact of stocking on other species. They sorta won and the DFG stopped stocking trout in a lot of lakes and streams for this reason and had to do more research on environmental impact before future stocking. (not that I like the outcome as a fishermen because this group was trying to save some yellow legged mountain frog which I don't really care to climb a mountain to see, but that aside).

I think this is what we need in Alberta. A class action lawsuit to show that the governments fisheries management strategies have destroyed and changed native fish populations. That native perch and pike are now collapsed. Hopefully it would stop them from stocking walleye in more lakes where they don't belong. Maybe even allow us to fish the walleye out of wabamun and get it back to a trophy pike fishery.

Just need a leader. Must be some lawyer out there who knows how this stuff works and likes fishing... and wouldn't mind some volunteer moments to think if its a possibility.


it's the same point I was trying to get across on the last thread. There is too much emphasis on loading the numbers of walleye, like a sacred species.

Get the balance in check and the numbers will improve naturally, with healthy fish.

At least that's what I believe will happen.

[SNAPFisher]

In California an environmental group, "Center for Biological Diversity" launched a lawsuit against California Department of Fish and Game for stocking trout without consideration of biodiversity and the impact of stocking on other species. They sorta won and the DFG stopped stocking trout in a lot of lakes and streams for this reason and had to do more research on environmental impact before future stocking. (not that I like the outcome as a fishermen because this group was trying to save some yellow legged mountain frog which I don't really care to climb a mountain to see, but that aside).

I think this is what we need in Alberta. A class action lawsuit to show that the governments fisheries management strategies have destroyed and changed native fish populations. That native perch and pike are now collapsed. Hopefully it would stop them from stocking walleye in more lakes where they don't belong. Maybe even allow us to fish the walleye out of wabamun and get it back to a trophy pike fishery.

Just need a leader. Must be some lawyer out there who knows how this stuff works and likes fishing... and wouldn't mind some volunteer moments to think if its a possibility.

That is interesting for sure. If things come to pass and a great cutthroat fishery like the Ram Rivers is destroyed, you might have people lining up.

Sounds like they have been in hot water in California on more than one occasion:

LISTING COHO SALMON AS ENDANGERED IGNORES
SCIENCE AND EXISTING PROTECTIONS

SUMMARY
On June 28, 2005, a coalition of forest landowners, ranchers and farmers, joined by the California Chamber of Commerce, filed a lawsuit against the California Fish and Game Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game for their decision to adopt and approve listing coho salmon as “endangered” along the Central California coast and as “threatened” along the Northern California coast to the Oregon border under the California Endangered Species Act.

The lawsuit maintains that the Commission and the Department failed to establish that the listing is necessary and doesn’t already serve the same purpose as other state or federal regulations. The lawsuit holds that the Commission failed to comply with key provisions of the California Endangered Species Act and Administrative Procedure Act in approving the listing.


FACTS AND FIGURES
FACT: The Department of Fish and Game has acknowledged that its scientific information is inadequate to support a population analysis—the core basis for listing under the California Endangered Species Act.

FACT: While landowners cannot allow a single coho salmon to be killed in fresh water, regulators allows commercial fishing operators to catch and kill coho in the ocean as a byproduct of catching other fish species.

FACT: A substantial body of research on the current status of coho salmon in Central and Northern California demonstrates the effectiveness of conservation measures in promoting both adult and juvenile coho salmon populations.

FACT: California’s listing of coho salmon as “threatened” and “endangered” unnecessarily duplicates its listing and protections measures under the federal Endangered Species Act and numerous other state watershed regulations.

FACT: Since the federal listing in 1997, California has instituted significant regulations for coho salmon and resource managers have invested more than $100 million in voluntary protection measures.

FACT: The new regulations expected to accompany the listing are estimated to cost forestland managers more than $30 million per year—with no added benefit to protecting salmon populations. This is in addition to the more than $100 million land managers continue to spend on voluntary and cooperative restoration efforts as well as nearly $20 million in timber harvest permit preparation costs, and fees paid to the Department of Fish and Game and other regulatory agencies.

[greendrake]

I detest the tag system, and I'm all for having lakes be C&R. How ever when I go to Pigeon and can catch 60-70 Keeper size fish or Wolf or Wab or calling and about 20 more just like them. I see no reason that these lakes could not afford to allow retention of 3 fish each. For a limited time example the month of June and again in Sept. F&W could monitor through creel samples and test netting to determine population density. Closures and restrictions would come from that. When I was in tournament fishing in the early 80s was when the idea of collapsed populations became a problem these closures like taxes were supposed to be temporary until stocks rebounded. That day has come, let's not let our fishing become a tag for every fish world where families who could use a supplement of protein shouldn't be penalized for lack of funds. Or we have to book in advance stream sections in a lottery system

[bobalong]

I detest the tag system, and I'm all for having lakes be C&R. How ever when I go to Pigeon and can catch 60-70 Keeper size fish or Wolf or Wab or calling and about 20 more just like them. I see no reason that these lakes could not afford to allow retention of 3 fish each. For a limited time example the month of June and again in Sept. F&W could monitor through creel samples and test netting to determine population density. Closures and restrictions would come from that. When I was in tournament fishing in the early 80s was when the idea of collapsed populations became a problem these closures like taxes were supposed to be temporary until stocks rebounded. That day has come, let's not let our fishing become a tag for every fish world where families who could use a supplement of protein shouldn't be penalized for lack of funds. Or we have to book in advance stream sections in a lottery system

A 3 fish walleye limit on lakes like Pigeon and Wabamun or any others within an hour of a major city would result in a collapse of that fishery. If you have fished these two lakes very much the last few years you have seen the hundreds of anglers that fished here even before there were tags. I am talking about back in the early 2000's.

I am not a fan of the tag system either but it is an attempt by F/W to allow some harvest at this lakes, with very little personnel there to monitor. I am not sure about September but F/W have been doing creel samples at Pigeon in the summer months for years.

Unless things have changed in the last couple of years there has been a focus on walleye because they were the most popular fish in the province even though the government refused to spend money on stocking for years. I agree their plan was a fail with regard to diversified species in a lake, but fishery management with the exception of trout has been a fail for many years.

When they started closing lakes back in the early to mid 90's they did so because it was cheap. They just closed the lakes. Then they decreased enforcement and never monitored or ignored the decline in pike and perch populations even though they were told it would happen when they designated walleye as catch and release only.

They refuse to allocate the required funds for a sustained, long term plan for stocking, test netting, or enforcement and that has not really changed much in the last 15 years or so.

[pikeman06]

Stick your tags where the sun don't shine. It's like the government pours millions of fingerling with the intent that each frigging little walleye is a five dollar bill in the end. We just planted 2 million fry we get 10 million bux in the end. Where does that tag revenue go? Spend ten bux and you get 2 scrawny wallies a year, but the lakes infested with them. Right on. The test nets say it all its not just my opinion. Once the wallies are established the perch numbers drop to a single digit the whitefish numbers are at least half and the pike arent far behind. The tag system is just a cash grab that generates enough support and money from any sucker that is blind enough to pay into that system that they brainwash the general public into thinking it's sound management to totally destroy a fishery so they can recover the money from the original stocking and maybe make a few bucks if they become established. It's not management it's about dollars.

[Isopod]

Haha, as much as I would love to sometime I just can't bring myself to cross the line an enter the realm of poacher. I'd rather try to influence people and government to take a second look at what is happening. Maybe I'll write a letter to the minister.

I personally do not poach fish (almost exclusively C&R). That said, I have decided to not turn anyone else in for poaching, even if they are blatant and obvious about it.

As long as we have some folks who can fish for as much as they want, whenever and wherever they want, whatever species they want, while everyone else is supposed to follow strict harvest rules so that there are enough fish for the first group to take as much as they want... well, that just doesn't seem to me like the way to sustain any kind of fishery. So I have decided to turn a blind eye to it all, and when I go fishing it is largely for the experience and meeting up with friends, and I don't care about what other fishers and/or poachers are up to.

[dodger]

Just a comment on the Southern lakes/reservoirs. I'm not sure if Walleye overpopulation is an issue "yet"? Now that commercial netting is no longer allowed what happens with all the Whitefish population. Will it generate enough food to prevent stunted Pike/Walleye? Plus the Whitefish need to eat. Also the Persian Carp are here, what do they bring to the food chain as far as being food for the predator fish while they feed on everything in the lake. Then enter the Crayfish. Walleye have been eating them ( Pike? ) and the Southern reservoirs are thick with them.

Things are changing at a rapid rate and I do not think there is a simple answer to this. I have no comment on retention of Walleye but I think our provincial government better take this serious and seek out the very BEST to help with future plans.

Also, just an after thought - Mussels are now knocking on the doorstep.

Dodger.

[pikergolf]

Seems the only fishery they're worried about collapsing is the walleye, with pike and perch just a formality.

I would say that, it is our fault. Alberta anglers have been clamoring for more and better walleye for decades. Why I don't know, I would rather catch a feisty pike over the logs that walleye are any day of the week. I would guess the popularity of tournaments has something to do with it. Everyone wants to emulate what they see on TV.

[Kurt505]

Ya, I don't get it. Some lakes are literally polluted with walleye and if you do happen to catch a pike it's like hitting the lottery, yet you can't keep any walleye. It obviously doesn't take a biologist to figure out there is a serious balance issue, I find it hard to believe that throwing more money at these biologists will fix the problem. I think if we stop throwing them money they might clue in.

The big push for Alberta to become a walleye catch and release Mecca might be coming from tournament fishing, but I think it's the family fishing trips that pay the bills over all. Call me old school, but if I can't keep a fish from a lake, I don't fish there. If everyone had that attitude I'd be willing to bet that the biologists would be rethinking their strategy. Once there's no more fishermen, there really is no need to employ a biologist to come up with a plan.

[greendrake]

A 3 fish walleye limit on lakes like Pigeon and Wabamun or any others within an hour of a major city would result in a collapse of that fishery. If you have fished these two lakes very much the last few years you have seen the hundreds of anglers that fished here even before there were tags. I am talking about back in the early 2000's.

I am not a fan of the tag system either but it is an attempt by F/W to allow some harvest at this lakes, with very little personnel there to monitor. I am not sure about September but F/W have been doing creel samples at Pigeon in the summer months for years.

Unless things have changed in the last couple of years there has been a focus on walleye because they were the most popular fish in the province even though the government refused to spend money on stocking for years. I agree their plan was a fail with regard to diversified species in a lake, but fishery management with the exception of trout has been a fail for many years.

When they started closing lakes back in the early to mid 90's they did so because it was cheap. They just closed the lakes. Then they decreased enforcement and never monitored or ignored the decline in pike and perch populations even though they were told it would happen when they designated walleye as catch and release only.

They refuse to allocate the required funds for a sustained, long term plan for stocking, test netting, or enforcement and that has not really changed much in the last 15 years or so.

I'm well aware of all you say, however you focus on Pigeon and Wab, I said there are at least 20 lakes in this position. Im saying that when retention being monitored reaches a point of stable population then protective measure go back into effect hence the close monitoring. Once the population returns to overabundance then it reverts back to retention. Many people poach, smoke weed, speed because you restrict them from it. There will always be criminal level poaching as long as there is a profit to be made. That's a whole different story. Its the people sneaking home a few that want or actually need some retention that wouldn't break the law because they wouldnt have to.

[ROA]

I remember back when you couldn't even catch a walleye in many of these lakes and it was the pike that were over populated and stunted. It's taken 15-20 years to flip the lakes around to walleye dominated. I think I like the stunted walleye fishing we have right now better than the stunted pike fishing of before.

So ya I bitch about all the dam fish I am catching and can't keep but at least I am catching more fish than ever.

[Kurt505]

I remember back when you couldn't even catch a walleye in many of these lakes and it was the pike that were over populated and stunted. It's taken 15-20 years to flip the lakes around to walleye dominated. I think I like the stunted walleye fishing we have right now better than the stunted pike fishing of before.

So ya I bitch about all the dam fish I am catching and can't keep but at least I am catching more fish than ever.

Pike fight way better than walleye, so if you're just going to throw them back, what difference does it make? You'd rather catch a bunch of docile fish than some that are larger on average and fight better, with the end goal being to throw them back?

Lol.

[Walleyedude]

In California an environmental group, "Center for Biological Diversity" launched a lawsuit against California Department of Fish and Game for stocking trout without consideration of biodiversity and the impact of stocking on other species. They sorta won and the DFG stopped stocking trout in a lot of lakes and streams for this reason and had to do more research on environmental impact before future stocking. (not that I like the outcome as a fishermen because this group was trying to save some yellow legged mountain frog which I don't really care to climb a mountain to see, but that aside).

I think this is what we need in Alberta. A class action lawsuit to show that the governments fisheries management strategies have destroyed and changed native fish populations. That native perch and pike are now collapsed. Hopefully it would stop them from stocking walleye in more lakes where they don't belong. Maybe even allow us to fish the walleye out of wabamun and get it back to a trophy pike fishery.

Just need a leader. Must be some lawyer out there who knows how this stuff works and likes fishing... and wouldn't mind some volunteer moments to think if its a possibility.

I'm going to keep my opinions on the rest of the thread to myself. Been there, done that, definitely don't want to do it again.

I will comment on this though. The absolute last thing I ever want to see is a USA style lawsuit or legal battle over our fisheries. I can't think of anything more ridiculous or that would be a bigger waste of money that could be used to actually improve the fisheries and fisheries management.

The ONLY people that win in that kind of a litigious "I'm gonna sue you" situation is the lawyers.

[ROA]

Ya possibly they fight "better" but it's still a stunted fish so it's not it's much of fight. Also many of the lakes were pretty fished out even for pike as everyone was keeping 5. When I was a kid we would fish all day for a couple pike. I'd still rather catch fish than not, people don't appreciate what they got right now and how bad it was 30 years ago in some of these lakes.

Another thing, the amount of people I see out fishing now is nuts. I would guess it is up by a factor of 10 on many lakes yet I am still catching fish as good or better in some cases.

[Kurt505]

Ya possibly they fight "better" but it's still a stunted fish so it's not it's much of fight. Also many of the lakes were pretty fished out even for pike as everyone was keeping 5. When I was a kid we would fish all day for a couple pike. I'd still rather catch fish than not, people don't appreciate what they got right now and how bad it was 30 years ago in some of these lakes.

I remember fishing 30 years ago. Huge perch in most of the lakes, you wouldn't catch 50 walleye in a day, but you'd always catch 5-10 of them, and I'd catch at least 1 pike in the 15-25lb range every year. The fish population was more diversely spread out. I agree that they left the catch limits too high for too long, but the way they remedied it was a knee jerk reaction that has created a whole new, equally damaging situation.

I bet if they had dropped the limit from 5 down to a slot size of 2 back in the early 80's we'd have a healthy, well balanced fish population today.

[SNAPFisher]

I remember back when you couldn't even catch a walleye in many of these lakes and it was the pike that were over populated and stunted. It's taken 15-20 years to flip the lakes around to walleye dominated. I think I like the stunted walleye fishing we have right now better than the stunted pike fishing of before.

So ya I bitch about all the dam fish I am catching and can't keep but at least I am catching more fish than ever.

Good to hear that you are catching more than ever :)

I remember growing up to pike fishing you are referring to - 5 o diamonds and whole lotta pike. Why can't we have it both ways? Great pike fisheries and great walleye fisheries.

Pike fight better, lb for lb, than walleye imho. Pike can attain amazing sizes comparative to walleye and hunting big pike hens like that...well that is a whole other game and challenge.

Speaking of central AB lakes, where I see an imbalance is lakes like Gull and Sylvan in particular where the walleye limit was zero for so long and yet the pike limit stayed and still is at 3 per day…

I’m not sure the logic in that. Maybe a few years at that, fine, but to continue that kind of imbalance to this day is not good for the balance just on predators in those lakes alone.

Do you fish Gull? If so, what do you think of the pike fishing there now to say 10-12 years ago? How about even 5 years ago.

[SNAPFisher]

I would say that, it is our fault. Alberta anglers have been clamoring for more and better walleye for decades. Why I don't know, I would rather catch a feisty pike over the logs that walleye are any day of the week. I would guess the popularity of tournaments has something to do with it. Everyone wants to emulate what they see on TV.

Good point, and I agree.

You think also how easy it is to get but also the crazy variety of baits now. Add in X times more anglers and limits that worked before, even 5-10 years ago, are not going to work now.

[bobalong]

I remember fishing 30 years ago. Huge perch in most of the lakes, you wouldn't catch 50 walleye in a day, but you'd always catch 5-10 of them, and I'd catch at least 1 pike in the 15-25lb range every year. The fish population was more diversely spread out. I agree that they left the catch limits too high for too long, but the way they remedied it was a knee jerk reaction that has created a whole new, equally damaging situation.

I bet if they had dropped the limit from 5 down to a slot size of 2 back in the early 80's we'd have a healthy, well balanced fish population today.

Hard to compare angling now to the early 80's there was no GPS, no underwater cameras and almost no sonar. Most ice fishing holes were all drilled by hand, few if any ATV for traveling on the ice. Can't find the link now but I believe I read there were about 85K licensed anglers in 1982, now about 250K

In 1980 there were about 2 million people, now there are over 4 million. There were none or very few of the big 5th wheel trailers and boats and motors were fairly small limiting travel on the big water. There is more knowledge available to anglers on their home and other waters than ever before in history........hardly anyone ever gets skunked any more summer or winter. Rods, reels, line, cameras, lures, sonar, mapping, electric motors, ice huts, heaters, augers, all better improving efficiency.

Most all the improvements today since the early 80's have increased angler efficiency significantly and are all factors that have contributed to the decline of our fisheries. Not really news for anyone thats been around for a while, but something to think about.

[huntsfurfish]

Seems the only fishery they're worried about collapsing is the walleye, with pike and perch just a formality.

First fisheries collapses were Walleye. Of coarse they worry about it. People pressured gov to fix it. They did. Few people showed concern about the other species till fairly recently. Walleye will continue to be a pretty high priority in this province because they are popular.

[huntsfurfish]

That right there is the key! That's what annoys me.

In California an environmental group, "Center for Biological Diversity" launched a lawsuit against California Department of Fish and Game for stocking trout without consideration of biodiversity and the impact of stocking on other species. They sorta won and the DFG stopped stocking trout in a lot of lakes and streams for this reason and had to do more research on environmental impact before future stocking. (not that I like the outcome as a fishermen because this group was trying to save some yellow legged mountain frog which I don't really care to climb a mountain to see, but that aside).

I think this is what we need in Alberta. A class action lawsuit to show that the governments fisheries management strategies have destroyed and changed native fish populations. That native perch and pike are now collapsed. Hopefully it would stop them from stocking walleye in more lakes where they don't belong. Maybe even allow us to fish the walleye out of wabamun and get it back to a trophy pike fishery.

Just need a leader. Must be some lawyer out there who knows how this stuff works and likes fishing... and wouldn't mind some volunteer moments to think if its a possibility.

Thats the last thing we need.

[huntsfurfish]

Ya, I don't get it. Some lakes are literally polluted with walleye and if you do happen to catch a pike it's like hitting the lottery, yet you can't keep any walleye. It obviously doesn't take a biologist to figure out there is a serious balance issue, I find it hard to believe that throwing more money at these biologists will fix the problem. I think if we stop throwing them money they might clue in.

The big push for Alberta to become a walleye catch and release Mecca might be coming from tournament fishing, but I think it's the family fishing trips that pay the bills over all. Call me old school, but if I can't keep a fish from a lake, I don't fish there. If everyone had that attitude I'd be willing to bet that the biologists would be rethinking their strategy. Once there's no more fishermen, there really is no need to employ a biologist to come up with a plan.

OMG Kurt you really dont get it! Test netting once every 5 years versus every year or 2 costs money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is in part how they determine what to do!!!!!!!!!!! Throwing money cmon. Obviously it you arent clueing in.

[huntsfurfish]

I'm going to keep my opinions on the rest of the thread to myself. Been there, done that, definitely don't want to do it again.

I will comment on this though. The absolute last thing I ever want to see is a USA style lawsuit or legal battle over our fisheries. I can't think of anything more ridiculous or that would be a bigger waste of money that could be used to actually improve the fisheries and fisheries management.

The ONLY people that win in that kind of a litigious "I'm gonna sue you" situation is the lawyers.

Agree, well said!

[huntsfurfish]

I remember fishing 30 years ago. Huge perch in most of the lakes, you wouldn't catch 50 walleye in a day, but you'd always catch 5-10 of them, and I'd catch at least 1 pike in the 15-25lb range every year. The fish population was more diversely spread out. I agree that they left the catch limits too high for too long, but the way they remedied it was a knee jerk reaction that has created a whole new, equally damaging situation.

I bet if they had dropped the limit from 5 down to a slot size of 2 back in the early 80's we'd have a healthy, well balanced fish population today.

Bet you kept your limit of huge perch each time you went out too. :)

[huntsfurfish]

Hard to compare angling now to the early 80's there was no GPS, no underwater cameras and almost no sonar. Most ice fishing holes were all drilled by hand, few if any ATV for traveling on the ice. Can't find the link now but I believe I read there were about 85K licensed anglers in 1982, now about 250K

In 1980 there were about 2 million people, now there are over 4 million. There were none or very few of the big 5th wheel trailers and boats and motors were fairly small limiting travel on the big water. There is more knowledge available to anglers on their home and other waters than ever before in history........hardly anyone ever gets skunked any more summer or winter. Rods, reels, line, cameras, lures, sonar, mapping, electric motors, ice huts, heaters, augers, all better improving efficiency.

Most all the improvements today since the early 80's have increased angler efficiency significantly and are all factors that have contributed to the decline of our fisheries. Not really news for anyone thats been around for a while, but something to think about.

True dat!

[Kurt505]

Hard to compare angling now to the early 80's there was no GPS, no underwater cameras and almost no sonar. Most ice fishing holes were all drilled by hand, few if any ATV for traveling on the ice. Can't find the link now but I believe I read there were about 85K licensed anglers in 1982, now about 250K

In 1980 there were about 2 million people, now there are over 4 million. There were none or very few of the big 5th wheel trailers and boats and motors were fairly small limiting travel on the big water. There is more knowledge available to anglers on their home and other waters than ever before in history........hardly anyone ever gets skunked any more summer or winter. Rods, reels, line, cameras, lures, sonar, mapping, electric motors, ice huts, heaters, augers, all better improving efficiency.

Most all the improvements today since the early 80's have increased angler efficiency significantly and are all factors that have contributed to the decline of our fisheries. Not really news for anyone thats been around for a while, but something to think about.


Never had a problem limiting out in the 80's, so a lower limit today would still mean less fish retained even if you can catch 100x more fish.

I think the number of licensed anglers in Alberta in the mid 80's was actually higher than today if I'm not mistaken??? I'm not positive but I think I read into that.

[Kurt505]

Bet you kept your limit of huge perch each time you went out too. :)

So what if I did!!!

It's not your place to judge my legal activity so you had better smarten up.


OMG Kurt you really dont get it! Test netting once every 5 years versus every year or 2 costs money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is in part how they determine what to do!!!!!!!!!!! Throwing money cmon. Obviously it you arent clueing in.



Where's my money going? Why can other provinces have a fish management strategy that works? Do their licenses cost 5x that of ours? I don't need to hear the excuse that they don't have the fishing pressure we do because this is about balance, it's about sustaining a healthy fish population.

How much did it cost them to shut down the retention?

How long ago did they do that??

What have they done with the money since then???

[Brandonkop]

Legal proceding occurs daily in Canada. Government is run by lawyers and judges, if you haven't noticed. To let a government policy go unchallenged when everyone sees a problem, just to avoid the legal pursuit, doesn't make sense to me.

It would sure help with accountability.



Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[SNAPFisher]

first fisheries collapses were walleye. Of coarse they worry about it. People pressured gov to fix it. They did. Few people showed concern about the other species till fairly recently. Walleye will continue to be a pretty high priority in this province because they are popular.

👏

[Kurt505]

Legal proceding occurs daily in Canada. Government is run by lawyers and judges, if you haven't noticed. To let a government policy go unchallenged when everyone sees a problem, just to avoid the legal pursuit, doesn't make sense to me.

It would sure help with accountability.



Exactly!

Where is the accountability for the money we spend on conservation?

[SNAPFisher]

Hard to compare angling now to the early 80's there was no GPS, no underwater cameras and almost no sonar. Most ice fishing holes were all drilled by hand, few if any ATV for traveling on the ice. Can't find the link now but I believe I read there were about 85K licensed anglers in 1982, now about 250K

In 1980 there were about 2 million people, now there are over 4 million. There were none or very few of the big 5th wheel trailers and boats and motors were fairly small limiting travel on the big water. There is more knowledge available to anglers on their home and other waters than ever before in history........hardly anyone ever gets skunked any more summer or winter. Rods, reels, line, cameras, lures, sonar, mapping, electric motors, ice huts, heaters, augers, all better improving efficiency.

Most all the improvements today since the early 80's have increased angler efficiency significantly and are all factors that have contributed to the decline of our fisheries. Not really news for anyone thats been around for a while, but something to think about.

x10

[Walleyedude]

Exactly!

Where is the accountability for the money we spend on conservation?

If you actually think lawyers are the answer, then there's no hope for our fisheries...

[huntsfurfish]

So what if I did!!!

It's not your place to judge my legal activity so you had better smarten up.


OMG Kurt you really dont get it! Test netting once every 5 years versus every year or 2 costs money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is in part how they determine what to do!!!!!!!!!!! Throwing money cmon. Obviously it you arent clueing in.



Where's my money going? Why can other provinces have a fish management strategy that works? Do their licenses cost 5x that of ours? I don't need to hear the excuse that they don't have the fishing pressure we do because this is about balance, it's about sustaining a healthy fish population.

How much did it cost them to shut down the retention?

How long ago did they do that??

What have they done with the money since then???

:) Face palm

[huntsfurfish]

Legal proceding occurs daily in Canada. Government is run by lawyers and judges, if you haven't noticed. To let a government policy go unchallenged when everyone sees a problem, just to avoid the legal pursuit, doesn't make sense to me.

It would sure help with accountability.



Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


Put money where I think its needed or I will sue you.:sHa_sarcasticlol:

Money well spent. Next group sues because you got a change then the next and the next. Careful what you wish for.:)

[huntsfurfish]

If you actually think lawyers are the answer, then there's no hope for our fisheries...

Agree.

[Kurt505]

If you actually think lawyers are the answer, then there's no hope for our fisheries...

I didn't realize I had that much pull.....

I think you mean I f we keep up with the current plan our fisheries have no hope, because that is a fact.

Your handle says it all.

Save the walleye! Screw the rest! Nobody should be eating my playmates!


What you don't seem to realize is that there is more than one type of fisherman sharing the pond.

If the biologists are only getting paid to do netting once every 5 years, what are they doing the other 4 years? Playing ping pong?

Since that other guy can't answer my question, maybe you can?

How long has it been since they shut down retention?

What have they learned since then? Other than closing off retention of walleye has had a detrimental effect on sustaining a healthy balance of fish species in our lakes?

It's all wonderful if you're a walleye tournament fisherman I suppose, but what about the others?

[Kurt505]

:) Face palm

That's about as much information as I suspected from you.

Glad you don't disappoint.

[huntsfurfish]

I didn't realize I had that much pull.....

I think you mean I f we keep up with the current plan our fisheries have no hope, because that is a fact.

Your handle says it all.

Save the walleye! Screw the rest! Nobody should be eating my playmates!


What you don't seem to realize is that there is more than one type of fisherman sharing the pond.

If the biologists are only getting paid to do netting once every 5 years, what are they doing the other 4 years? Playing ping pong?

Since that other guy can't answer my question, maybe you can?

How long has it been since they shut down retention?

What have they learned since then? Other than closing off retention of walleye has had a detrimental effect on sustaining a healthy balance of fish species in our lakes?

It's all wonderful if you're a walleye tournament fisherman I suppose, but what about the others?

Nice to see you have learned nothing in this thread or the last 2 threads.:thinking-006:

You want answers, but if you dont agree with them you seem to ignore them.

Each bio rotates the water bodies in their area. They each get test netted about once every 5 years. More testing requires more techs. Quite simple.


Coming up with suggestions and questions is easy. The rest is harder.:)

[huntsfurfish]

That's about as much information as I suspected from you.

Glad you don't disappoint.

Where is your information? You seem to ignore what is said anyway.:sign0176:

[Walleyedude]

I didn't realize I had that much pull.....

I think you mean I f we keep up with the current plan our fisheries have no hope, because that is a fact.

Your handle says it all.

Save the walleye! Screw the rest! Nobody should be eating my playmates!


What you don't seem to realize is that there is more than one type of fisherman sharing the pond.

If the biologists are only getting paid to do netting once every 5 years, what are they doing the other 4 years? Playing ping pong?

Since that other guy can't answer my question, maybe you can?

How long has it been since they shut down retention?

What have they learned since then? Other than closing off retention of walleye has had a detrimental effect on sustaining a healthy balance of fish species in our lakes?

It's all wonderful if you're a walleye tournament fisherman I suppose, but what about the others?

Kurt505,

I apologize for quoting your post in my response. That was not my intent. I merely meant to comment on the lunacy of thinking lawyers were the best solution to our fisheries management issues in general.

I have absolutely zero desire to engage with you in any conversation, and I will not respond any further, I learned my lesson the first time around.

In the future, please DO NOT put words in my mouth or attempt to speak for me or represent my position on the issue in any way.

Thanks.

[Kurt505]

In the future, please DO NOT put words in my mouth or attempt to speak for me or represent my position on the issue in any way.

Thanks.

Ha, ironic.

It was because you misquoted me that I responded to you.

I was talking about accountability, you are the one who brought lawyers in the mix.

[bobalong]

Since that other guy can't answer my question, maybe you can?




I am not sure if this was directed at me but I will answer.


How long has it been since they shut down retention?
There was lots of discussion and anger when F/W started talking about making walleye catch and release only. Campgrounds were concerned that anglers would not come to their lake if they could not keep walleye, costing them big money.
I am only familiar with the lakes around Edmonton and to the north but walleye closures and big reductions I believe began in the mid 90's. Pigeon, Lac. St. Anne, Lac La Nonne, South Buck (min size) Pine.

What have they learned since then? Other than closing off retention of walleye has had a detrimental effect on sustaining a healthy balance of fish species in our lakes?
One of the things they have learned is that if people want to keep fish to eat and can't keep walleye, they will keep pike, perch whitefish etc.

They also learned that virtually stopping all stocking of walleye in Alberta from 1999 to 2006 did not help recovery........but it didn't cost them anything either.

The province of Alberta still stocks very few lakes in Alberta with walleye. In 2006 when I sat on the Fisheries Roundtable of Alberta they were spending about 6 million dollars a year on trout stocking and 200k on walleye, even though they admitted then that walleye was by far the most popular game fish. That was 11 years ago and even now not much has changed with regard to government planning, the Bios knew what needed to be done but were not given money to do it, in fact through some of those years their budgets were cut.

My observation over the past 50 years or so of fishing in this province is that sustaining fish in our province in the lakes close to a large city will take consistent and long term stocking of walleye, pike and perch. Imagine the improvement if they spent 6 million a year even now and every year for stocking these 3 species. That would be a commitment to our fisheries and the Alberta Government has not done that for decades, so they have a lot of catching up to do.

[Kurt505]

I am not sure if this was directed at me but I will answer.


How long has it been since they shut down retention?
There was lots of discussion and anger when F/W started talking about making walleye catch and release only. Campgrounds were concerned that anglers would not come to their lake if they could not keep walleye, costing them big money.
I am only familiar with the lakes around Edmonton and to the north but walleye closures and big reductions I believe began in the mid 90's. Pigeon, Lac. St. Anne, Lac La Nonne, South Buck (min size) Pine.

What have they learned since then? Other than closing off retention of walleye has had a detrimental effect on sustaining a healthy balance of fish species in our lakes?
One of the things they have learned is that if people want to keep fish to eat and can't keep walleye, they will keep pike, perch whitefish etc.

They also learned that virtually stopping all stocking of walleye in Alberta from 1999 to 2006 did not help recovery........but it didn't cost them anything either.

The province of Alberta still stocks very few lakes in Alberta with walleye. In 2006 when I sat on the Fisheries Roundtable of Alberta they were spending about 6 million dollars a year on trout stocking and 200k on walleye, even though they admitted then that walleye was by far the most popular game fish. That was 11 years ago and even now not much has changed with regard to government planning, the Bios knew what needed to be done but were not given money to do it, in fact through some of those years their budgets were cut.

My observation over the past 50 years or so of fishing in this province is that sustaining fish in our province in the lakes close to a large city will take consistent and long term stocking of walleye, pike and perch. Imagine the improvement if they spent 6 million a year even now and every year for stocking these 3 species. That would be a commitment to our fisheries and the Alberta Government has not done that for decades, so they have a lot of catching up to do.

It wasn't directed at you Bob, but your response is much appreciated, educated, and makes a lot of sense.

You also inadvertently answered my question of where the money goes, and backed up both Brandon's and my position on it. We can keep throwing all the money we want towards conservation, but unless there is accountability for that money, it's not going to matter one bit. Some folks don't get it.

If people stopped buying fishing licenses I think they'd get the message.

[huntsfurfish]

Kurt505,

I apologize for quoting your post in my response. That was not my intent. I merely meant to comment on the lunacy of thinking lawyers were the best solution to our fisheries management issues in general.

I have absolutely zero desire to engage with you in any conversation, and I will not respond any further, I learned my lesson the first time around.

In the future, please DO NOT put words in my mouth or attempt to speak for me or represent my position on the issue in any way.

Thanks.

Smartest man on this thread so far.:)

[Kurt505]

Smartest man on this thread so far.:)


Ha! That's your answer? You keep slinging insults instead of information?



What do you have to say about Bobs post you arrogant..... member you. You keep yapping about throwing more money to the bios, when someone comes on here and tells you where that money isn't going and you still come on here with your cheap shots and no info?


You can't see past your own nose it's up so high!

85,000 licenses in 1980 say, 5 fish limit = 425,000 fish per limit, say they limit out 8 times per season = 3.5million fish.

300,000 licensed anglers today, 1 fish limit, = 300,000 fish, say they limit out 8 times per season, 2.4million fish.

Even with over 3x the amount of anglers it would still be over 1million less fish retained.

I don't expect you to understand there are other ways of creating a healthy, sustainable fish population other than thowing money out and hoping a zero retention will work, but I know there are a lot of people who do.

[huntsfurfish]

Ha! That's your answer? You keep slinging insults instead of information?



What do you have to say about Bobs post you arrogant..... member you. You keep yapping about throwing more money to the bios, when someone comes on here and tells you where that money isn't going and you still come on here with your cheap shots and no info?


You can't see past your own nose it's up so high!

85,000 licenses in 1980 say, 5 fish limit = 425,000 fish per limit, say they limit out 8 times per season = 3.5million fish.

300,000 licensed anglers today, 1 fish limit, = 300,000 fish, say they limit out 8 times per season, 2.4million fish.

Even with over 3x the amount of anglers it would still be over 1million less fish retained.

I don't expect you to understand there are other ways of creating a healthy, sustainable fish population other than thowing money out and hoping a zero retention will work, but I know there are a lot of people who do.

:) I dont know what to say anymore. Except Walleyedude was right.

PS/edit: sorry if I offended you.:)

[pikeman06]

You can argue all you want boys but if you think all these walleye "factories" are a good thing or that it will lead to a healthy sustainable fishery you just don't know so don't try to tell us albertans that grew up and fished these lakes over the past 20 or 30 years that what we have now is good. Just because you pull out your boat twice a year and hammer the half starved and frozen minnow fed wallies like there's no tomorrow doesn't mean you are a fish catching machine. I miss the schools of little perch when you launched your boat and the little jackfish scooting out of the weeds when you pull up on shore. Those fish were the future and keeping a few perch or a pike or two made sense because the lake was alive with them. Tell me what you see now? Nothing. Wallies ate em all and they ain't coming back. Sheez done. Wabamum is the proof in the pudding. On a zero retention lake with no winter kill it's just like pigeon now. Can't blame that one on the anglers. I hope the natives net the be jeezus out it. Shame to see such a big fertile water body reduced to a toilet bowl full of look alike wallies starving to death.

[Kurt505]

You can argue all you want boys but if you think all these walleye "factories" are a good thing or that it will lead to a healthy sustainable fishery you just don't know so don't try to tell us albertans that grew up and fished these lakes over the past 20 or 30 years that what we have now is good. Just because you pull out your boat twice a year and hammer the half starved and frozen minnow fed wallies like there's no tomorrow doesn't mean you are a fish catching machine. I miss the schools of little perch when you launched your boat and the little jackfish scooting out of the weeds when you pull up on shore. Those fish were the future and keeping a few perch or a pike or two made sense because the lake was alive with them. Tell me what you see now? Nothing. Wallies ate em all and they ain't coming back. Sheez done. Wabamum is the proof in the pudding. On a zero retention lake with no winter kill it's just like pigeon now. Can't blame that one on the anglers. I hope the natives net the be jeezus out it. Shame to see such a big fertile water body reduced to a toilet bowl full of look alike wallies starving to death.


Can I get an Amen!

Like I pointed out earlier, if they had set the retention limit to 1 per person per day and went with that for a while and see where that got them. If they didn't see an improvement in the first 3-5yrs, add a slot size to the lakes that weren't doing well and bump up the limit on the lakes that were doing good.

Nature is about balance, and if you create a man made imbalance and expect it to solve the problem, you're a fool. Predators need prey, and despite what some may think, prey needs the predators. Not only did Alberta create a man made imbalance on most lakes, they caused excessive angling pressure on the lakes they didn't screw up, in turn wrecking the lakes that prior to the big closures, had no problems.

What happens when people can't keep fish out of one lake? They go to one they can. The concept is rocket science to some, but fortunately not all. Open up retention with a slot size to start, and I bet you'll see lakes across Alberta start to improve. Sure, a 5 fish per person might have been a bit excessive, but a zero retention on walleye has been just as detrimental to the health of our lakes imo. Except for the people who like to catch and release 75 walleye a day without a care in the world for the rest of the game fish in the lake.

Do you think they'll have the budget to add a pike restocking program, or one for perch?



Not likely!!!

[SNAPFisher]

Somewhat related to this topic but more so on rearing other types of fish than just walleye. Looks like Wisconsin puts a little more $$$ into stocking. Or at the very least a variety of species. Just a couple of the top of a quick search:

http://spoonerhatchery.com/how-we-grow-fish/

http://www.taallakehatchery.com/

Those are some big numbers of fish to feed muskies. We probably wouldn't have a enough prey fish left to feed them in AB :innocent:

I wonder if the Cold Lake fish hatchery is or could be setup to handle pike and perch? I'm asking as I don't know. No doubt it could at least handle minnows and other smaller prey fish.

[npauls]

It's all wonderful if you're a walleye tournament fisherman I suppose, but what about the others?

What you fail to realize is that if a lake/reservoir goes to a zero keep or tag system then walleye tournaments are no longer able to receive permits to have an event on that body of water. So closing a lake doesn't help tournament anglers at all.

Our province has the highest anglers per water capita in all of Canada and right up there for all of north America. A simple slot system just won't work like it does in other provinces and states. The retention rate is too high.

I agree that we need test netting done more often and for f&w to be proactive instead of reactive when it comes to the up and down fazes of our fisheries.

A good example of miss management is Chin reservoir in the south. There is major talks of shutting it down because of test net results from 8 YEARS AGO! That is how long it roughly takes a walleye to reach maturity. So there is a whole new crop of fish in that lake and 8 full spawning seasons since the last results but because those results from 8 years ago were bad they want to shut it down. A lot of the anglers in southern Alberta have known about this plan to shut down all the reservoirs in the south on a 5 year rotation.

If you ask around the south. Chin is one of the best if not the best year class fishery around. You can catch pretty much every year class pretty much every day out there. There are tons of reservoirs in way worse shape than chin but it is the next one up on the hit list that they have for an agenda.

[bobalong]

What you fail to realize is that if a lake/reservoir goes to a zero keep or tag system then walleye tournaments are no longer able to receive permits to have an event on that body of water. So closing a lake doesn't help tournament anglers at all.

With the exception of Pinehurst Lake it is a tag lake and still holds tournaments.

[ROA]

You can argue all you want boys but if you think all these walleye "factories" are a good thing or that it will lead to a healthy sustainable fishery you just don't know so don't try to tell us albertans that grew up and fished these lakes over the past 20 or 30 years that what we have now is good. Just because you pull out your boat twice a year and hammer the half starved and frozen minnow fed wallies like there's no tomorrow doesn't mean you are a fish catching machine. I miss the schools of little perch when you launched your boat and the little jackfish scooting out of the weeds when you pull up on shore. Those fish were the future and keeping a few perch or a pike or two made sense because the lake was alive with them. Tell me what you see now? Nothing. Wallies ate em all and they ain't coming back. Sheez done. Wabamum is the proof in the pudding. On a zero retention lake with no winter kill it's just like pigeon now. Can't blame that one on the anglers. I hope the natives net the be jeezus out it. Shame to see such a big fertile water body reduced to a toilet bowl full of look alike wallies starving to death.




I would agree 30-40 years ago but not 10-20 years ago range for most lakes. The fact is by the 2000 (that was 17 years ago remember ). lots of lakes were fished out pretty bad and will never be what they were in the 70's and 80's. It's not just the walleye that kill all the other fish it's the crazy fishing pressure.

There is one lake in know of that has never came around on the numbers of walleye like most of the other lakes every one is talking about and the perch and pike fishing there is worse than ever. If it were loaded with walleye right now everyone would be blaming that but it not. It's loaded with every day of the week fisherman. The schools of 1000"s of perch I remember seeing are gone, all the little pike up in the reeds you speak of are gone and it's not because of the walleye as they never did come back. It's the thousands and thousands of fishing hours the lake sees.



Any one else remember when lakes like slave only had pike and we would catch no walleye? That lake is loaded with fish now, it went way over to the walleye side of things to the point you would hardly ever catch a pike. Now look at it it is staring to balance its self out and large pike are now being caught at a rate I have never seen. The kicker is that lake is still polluted with walleye and yet the trophy pike fishing has come around in the last 5 years suddenly. Why? I don't know but it could start happening in other lakes as well especially now the commercial fishing has been shut down. The story is not over, there is more going on than people understand and things will change.

[Kurt505]

Any one else remember when lakes like slave only had pike and we would catch no walleye? That lake is loaded with fish now, it went way over to the walleye side of things to the point you would hardly ever catch a pike. Now look at it it is staring to balance its self out and large pike are now being caught at a rate I have never seen. The kicker is that lake is still polluted with walleye and yet the trophy pike fishing has come around in the last 5 years suddenly. Why? I don't know but it could start happening in other lakes as well especially now the commercial fishing has been shut down. The story is not over, there is more going on than people understand and things will change.


Slave lake is, and has been open for general size limit retention all along.
What lake is it that you speak of that has collapsed?

npauls, thanks for that info, I didn't know that about tournament fishing.

[SNAPFisher]

What you fail to realize is that if a lake/reservoir goes to a zero keep or tag system then walleye tournaments are no longer able to receive permits to have an event on that body of water. So closing a lake doesn't help tournament anglers at all.

Our province has the highest anglers per water capita in all of Canada and right up there for all of north America. A simple slot system just won't work like it does in other provinces and states. The retention rate is too high.

I agree that we need test netting done more often and for f&w to be proactive instead of reactive when it comes to the up and down fazes of our fisheries.

A good example of miss management is Chin reservoir in the south. There is major talks of shutting it down because of test net results from 8 YEARS AGO! That is how long it roughly takes a walleye to reach maturity. So there is a whole new crop of fish in that lake and 8 full spawning seasons since the last results but because those results from 8 years ago were bad they want to shut it down. A lot of the anglers in southern Alberta have known about this plan to shut down all the reservoirs in the south on a 5 year rotation.

If you ask around the south. Chin is one of the best if not the best year class fishery around. You can catch pretty much every year class pretty much every day out there. There are tons of reservoirs in way worse shape than chin but it is the next one up on the hit list that they have for an agenda.

Interesting on tournament fishing. Great info on Chin and South as well. Thanks.

[RavYak]

What you fail to realize is that if a lake/reservoir goes to a zero keep or tag system then walleye tournaments are no longer able to receive permits to have an event on that body of water. So closing a lake doesn't help tournament anglers at all.

Our province has the highest anglers per water capita in all of Canada and right up there for all of north America. A simple slot system just won't work like it does in other provinces and states. The retention rate is too high.

I agree that we need test netting done more often and for f&w to be proactive instead of reactive when it comes to the up and down fazes of our fisheries.

A good example of miss management is Chin reservoir in the south. There is major talks of shutting it down because of test net results from 8 YEARS AGO! That is how long it roughly takes a walleye to reach maturity. So there is a whole new crop of fish in that lake and 8 full spawning seasons since the last results but because those results from 8 years ago were bad they want to shut it down. A lot of the anglers in southern Alberta have known about this plan to shut down all the reservoirs in the south on a 5 year rotation.

If you ask around the south. Chin is one of the best if not the best year class fishery around. You can catch pretty much every year class pretty much every day out there. There are tons of reservoirs in way worse shape than chin but it is the next one up on the hit list that they have for an agenda.

First of all the old anglers per waterbody argument is severely overplayed on this forum and is next to meaningless. If you want to actually compare provinces in this manner you need to look at the primary people holding areas(say 3 hrs surrounding every city), data for which I do not believe is available. If you did this the angler/waterbody or area of water would skyrocket in most other provinces because most of their waterbodies are inaccessible or rarely accessed by their primary fishing populations.

Alberta on the other hand only has a handful of very remote waterbodies that don't see regular pressure and outside of the few major lakes close to Edmonton/Red Deer/Calgary our fishing pressure is spread out pretty effectively.

If you have ever fished any of these other provinces you will know that there are many lakes/rivers in some of these other provinces that see just as much if not more pressure then our AB waterbodies see. I know I have seen it in both SK and BC as well as many times in fishing shows etc for ON.


Back to the walleye topic.


Your comments regarding Chin are a great example of why the tag system is not the solution here in AB. The only way to properly micromanage a lake by controlling tag numbers requires in depth population estimates every couple years at least. Netting is the main way they get this information but that is not a good means especially on a year to year or every other year basis as their is significant mortality associated with that netting.

The only way the tag system is effective with lack of perfect micromanaging is if it is used like it currently is on Pigeon and Ste. Anne where the lakes are overpopulated and the tag numbers are set low to ensure there are not too many fish removed. That has other negative effects though because it screws up the lakes ecosystem and decimates other fish species populations as is completely obvious on those lakes both of which used to have populations of pike, perch and whitefish all of which are now lacking and not really recovering even though the limits have been closed for some time now(for pike anyways)...

I am vehemently against a province wide tag system because I know it won't be managed properly and all it is going to do is ruin these waterbodies. If they want to use it on the lakes close to city that do see signifcant pressure like Pigeon etc do then I am ok with that but implementing these on every lake across the province and them now wanting to do so for pike as well is utterly ridiculous and is going to do far more harm then good.

Alternatives to the tag system are minimum size limits which have proven effective(and which for the record AEP also says are effective minus the stunted average size) and slot limits which have all the advantages of a minimum size limit plus give a population of larger fish as well.

AEP really likes to focus on walleye, grayling and bull trout but they keep doing so at the expense of other species and it is time that they step back and realize what they are doing and start making some better decisions regarding the big picture of fish populations and angling in Alberta.

[RavYak]

Also we don't need walleye to recover in every single lake especially ones that will never be able to sustain a fishery due to poor walleye reproduction etc.

Leave those lakes to be the pike and perch lakes instead of just having them full of stunted walleye that you can't and won't ever be able to keep anyways...

[Kurt505]

I totally agree with you Rav.

[huntsfurfish]

First of all the old anglers per waterbody argument is severely overplayed on this forum and is next to meaningless. If you want to actually compare provinces in this manner you need to look at the primary people holding areas(say 3 hrs surrounding every city), data for which I do not believe is available. If you did this the angler/waterbody or area of water would skyrocket in most other provinces because most of their waterbodies are inaccessible or rarely accessed by their primary fishing populations.

Alberta on the other hand only has a handful of very remote waterbodies that don't see regular pressure and outside of the few major lakes close to Edmonton/Red Deer/Calgary our fishing pressure is spread out pretty effectively.

If you have ever fished any of these other provinces you will know that there are many lakes/rivers in some of these other provinces that see just as much if not more pressure then our AB waterbodies see. I know I have seen it in both SK and BC as well as many times in fishing shows etc for ON.


Back to the walleye topic.


Your comments regarding Chin are a great example of why the tag system is not the solution here in AB. The only way to properly micromanage a lake by controlling tag numbers requires in depth population estimates every couple years at least. Netting is the main way they get this information but that is not a good means especially on a year to year or every other year basis as their is significant mortality associated with that netting.

The only way the tag system is effective with lack of perfect micromanaging is if it is used like it currently is on Pigeon and Ste. Anne where the lakes are overpopulated and the tag numbers are set low to ensure there are not too many fish removed. That has other negative effects though because it screws up the lakes ecosystem and decimates other fish species populations as is completely obvious on those lakes both of which used to have populations of pike, perch and whitefish all of which are now lacking and not really recovering even though the limits have been closed for some time now(for pike anyways)...

I am vehemently against a province wide tag system because I know it won't be managed properly and all it is going to do is ruin these waterbodies. If they want to use it on the lakes close to city that do see signifcant pressure like Pigeon etc do then I am ok with that but implementing these on every lake across the province and them now wanting to do so for pike as well is utterly ridiculous and is going to do far more harm then good.

Alternatives to the tag system are minimum size limits which have proven effective(and which for the record AEP also says are effective minus the stunted average size) and slot limits which have all the advantages of a minimum size limit plus give a population of larger fish as well.

AEP really likes to focus on walleye, grayling and bull trout but they keep doing so at the expense of other species and it is time that they step back and realize what they are doing and start making some better decisions regarding the big picture of fish populations and angling in Alberta.

Would more funding help, would it be a big part of the solution?

[Kurt505]

Would more funding help, would it be a big part of the solution?

Is that your only solution? More funding? What exactly would not benefit from more funding? I can't think of anything that wouldn't, but pretend there isn't going to be more funding, what do you think would help our current situation? Do you have like a real suggestion other than more money?:thinking-006:

[huntsfurfish]

Is that your only solution? More funding? What exactly would not benefit from more funding? I can't think of anything that wouldn't, but pretend there isn't going to be more funding, what do you think would help our current situation? Do you have like a real suggestion other than more money?:thinking-006:

Just asking a question.:scared0018:

[Kurt505]

Just asking a question.:scared0018:

It was a good question.....

What do you think they should do with that extra money?

[huntsfurfish]

It was a good question.....

What do you think they should do with that extra money?

I was asking Rav, but you are free to answer if you like.:)

Guess maybe Im the only one that thinks more money and testing would be a good thing. Thought maybe Rav might have some thoughts on that.

Actually agree with some of what Rav said, but not all.

[Kurt505]

I was asking Rav, but you are free to answer if you like.:)

Guess maybe Im the only one that thinks more money and testing would be a good thing. Thought maybe Rav might have some thoughts on that.

Actually agree with some of what Rav said, but not all.

My 5yr old could tell you more money and testing is never a bad thing, I'm trying to see if you have a specific idea that might be better than what they're doing right now in the meantime?

You keep saying you know what the solution is, but I have yet to hear about it. I was just hoping you weren't just blowing hot air?

If you don't really know of any ideas, I guess more money is the master plan.

I like Bobalongs take on the situation, but more money means nothing unless it lands in the right place for programs such as the one he mentioned.

More money...... huh.

[huntsfurfish]

My 5yr old could tell you more money and testing is never a bad thing, I'm trying to see if you have a specific idea that might be better than what they're doing right now in the meantime?

You keep saying you know what the solution is, but I have yet to hear about it. I was just hoping you weren't just blowing hot air?

If you don't really know of any ideas, I guess more money is the master plan.

I like Bobalongs take on the situation, but more money means nothing unless it lands in the right place for programs such as the one he mentioned.

More money...... huh.

Good gravy here we go again. They need more money for the testing.
They need money for stocking if you want to go that route among other things. You cant "manage" without testing. Smart kid have him explain it to you.:)
Was kind of hoping Rav would agree that more funding was needed for testing and such than maybe you would see why.
And stop answering questions with questions. lol

[Kurt505]

Good gravy here we go again. They need more money for the testing.
They need money for stocking if you want to go that route among other things. You cant "manage" without testing. Smart kid have him explain it to you.:)

And stop answering questions with questions. lol


Answer what question? Will money help? It was such a stupid question I honestly thought you were joking???


So in the meantime, since they aren't getting any money (I should have my kid explain that to you) what's the plan?

Let me guess, you want to keep it a secret?


It's easy to sit on the fence and throw stones, but at least have a plan when you run out of stones.

[huntsfurfish]

So in the meantime, since they aren't getting any money (I should have my kid explain that to you) what's the plan?

Let me guess, you want to keep it a secret?

DO you even know why you want a slot limit?

Slot limits were originally used to allow the removal of eating size fish. Which are usually far from spawning age. Is that what you want? If so that would be a mistake.

Slot limits above the spawning age is just the lower limit where it currently is with a maximum size to protect a larger size. This would be an appropriate selection for quality fisheries. However, the comment by Rav about stunting is unlikely to be the case because of keeping of fish and more likely the result of few fish making it much over that limit before being removed. If you are looking to keep fish than the slot will restrict your ability to keep, even more than current regs.

More testing is needed to make better judgement/decisions. How do you determine limits? Or slot sizes? Slots to be safe without much monitoring If you dont get it(monitoring) than what we have is best and should not stray to far.

Knowing what you want and why is important.

[SNAPFisher]

I think, used loosely, that going forwards it will depend on the management framework. I added an excerpt from the framework to this.

I do believe that more $$$ directed to testing, and more often and then stocking based on these results would be ideal. Starting with the species and areas at highest risk.

It is hard to have faith in government spending but I'm hopeful that something like this could come to fruition. The next few months might be interesting...hopefully not disappointing.

[Kurt505]

DO you even know why you want a slot limit?

Slot limits were originally used to allow the removal of eating size fish. Which are usually far from spawning age. Is that what you want? If so that would be a mistake.


In lakes such as pigeon, wabamun, and Lac ste anne, why would that be a mistake? The walleye population is way above where it should be in these lakes, just to name a few. The more lakes that get opened up, the less angling pressure an individual lake will have to endure. Opening up just one or two lakes would be a mistake.

Slot limits above the spawning age is just the lower limit where it currently is with a maximum size to protect a larger size. This would be an appropriate selection for quality fisheries. However, the comment by Rav about stunting is unlikely to be the case because of keeping of fish and more likely the result of few fish making it much over that limit before being removed. If you are looking to keep fish than the slot will restrict you catch even more.

What about south buck? How many walleye grow to 50cm+ in that lake? Thinning out the herd will leave more food and room for fish to grow.

More testing is needed to make better judgement/decisions. How do you determine limits? Slots to be safe without much monitoring If you dont get it(monitoring) than what we have is best and should not stray to far.

Knowing what you want and why is important.

I would like to see a 1 fish limit on a large scale across Alberta to 1) Help bring the walleye/pike/perch ratios back to a more natural level, 2) Spread the angling pressure across several lakes instead of just a chosen few.

[SNAPFisher]

Slot limits were originally used to allow the removal of eating size fish. Which are usually far from spawning age. Is that what you want? If so that would be a mistake.

Slot limits above the spawning age is just the lower limit where it currently is with a maximum size to protect a larger size. This would be an appropriate selection for quality fisheries. However, the comment by Rav about stunting is unlikely to be the case because of keeping of fish and more likely the result of few fish making it much over that limit before being removed. If you are looking to keep fish than the slot will restrict your ability to keep even more than current regs.


Good post on slot limits!

One of the things mentioned in the new framework is the objective to achieve at least 3 spawning events before a fish can be harvested. And now they are looking at changing that up depending on how a body of water is classified.

I don't see anywhere that slots are playing a part of that...yet. It is only draft after all. Maybe under Experimental or Study Based. Maybe...

[SNAPFisher]

I would like to see a 1 fish limit on a large scale across Alberta to 1) Help bring the walleye/pike/perch ratios back to a more natural level, 2) Spread the angling pressure across several lakes instead of just a chosen few.

In the context of walleye only for the 1 fish limit, I'm assuming?

[Kurt505]

In the context of walleye only for the 1 fish limit, I'm assuming?

Yes.

[SNAPFisher]

Yes.

Specific lakes or all?

[Kurt505]

Specific lakes or all?

The more the better to spread angling pressure. Any lakes in danger i.e. With low walleye numbers can go with tags, others with high numbers of walleye open to 1 slot sized fish.

[SNAPFisher]

The more the better to spread angling pressure. Any lakes in danger i.e. With low walleye numbers can go with tags, others with high numbers of walleye open to 1 slot sized fish.

Seems reasonable since it is selective. I would certainly see that agreeable to try for a year with planned test netting to monitor along the way.

It seems that is somewhat their newer plan...to be vetted of course...but might take them a lot longer to implement than anglers may like.

I knew we agreed :)

[huntsfurfish]

I would like to see a 1 fish limit on a large scale across Alberta to 1) Help bring the walleye/pike/perch ratios back to a more natural level, 2) Spread the angling pressure across several lakes instead of just a chosen few.

I would like to see world peace. Sorry couldnt resist.:);)

Would be nice to keep 10 fish a day any species.

K kidding aside.

But it really would be nice to see what you posted but extremely unlikely because the water closest to the cities get fished out first then repeat with the next and so on......

Nothing wrong with aiming for the moon though.

[SNAPFisher]

I would like to see world peace. Sorry couldnt resist.:);)

Would be nice to keep 10 fish a day any species.

But it really would be nice to see what you posted but extremely unlikely because the water closest to the cities get fished out first then repeat with the next......

Nothing wrong with aiming for the moon though.

Understood, but if it was more selective. For example Pigeon was still tags due to the close population pressure, I could be a good thing for the lakes currently left out under the general no limit retention.

Whether or not that is achievable ...I understand when you say the moon. I guess I'm the eternal optimist that thinks if we can band together we can make change happen. [Was that Dave Jenson pointing and at me and saying "good luck!...but have at it]

[huntsfurfish]

Understood, but if it was more selective. For example Pigeon was still tags due to the close population pressure, I could be a good thing for the lakes currently left out under the general no limit retention.

Whether or not that is achievable ...I understand when you say the moon. I guess I'm the eternal optimist that thinks if we can band together we can make change happen. [Was that Dave Jenson pointing and at me and saying "good luck!...but have at it]

Yup, we cant even agree on here. But there is always hope.

I have a little more faith in our bios and fish guys and gals. I believe things are improving just not fast enough for some. And yes some mistakes were made.
Balance will not be achieved overnight. But I also do not wish to see the government pressured into bad ideas either. There is a lot to it. Not a simple fix like putting 1 fish limit or a slot on everything.

[SNAPFisher]

Thanks, well said.

Yeah, agree on the speed of things. It should be interesting on the new framework over the next few months. I'm sure that will lead to more "discussions" and hopefully constructive ones :innocent:

[huntsfurfish]

Thanks, well said.

Yeah, agree on the speed of things. It should be interesting on the new framework over the next few months. I'm sure that will lead to more "discussions" and hopefully constructive ones :innocent:

Many will probably not be happy with it.

I feel fortunate to fish in this Province, fished it for at least 55 years. Some of the best fishing i have had is in the last 10-20.

[pikergolf]

I like the tag system as they can control pretty much exactly what comes out. Having said that, Alberta needs to get a lot more liberal on tag numbers on some of these lakes and bring them into some semblance of balance.

[Talking moose]

I like the tag system as they can control pretty much exactly what comes out. Having said that, Alberta needs to get a lot more liberal on tag numbers on some of these lakes and bring them into some semblance of balance.

This...^

[Brandonkop]

Also we don't need walleye to recover in every single lake especially ones that will never be able to sustain a fishery due to poor walleye reproduction etc.

Leave those lakes to be the pike and perch lakes instead of just having them full of stunted walleye that you can't and won't ever be able to keep anyways...

I agree with Ravyak. Great points!

I disagree that more funding would help. Funding changes nothing if there is no change in the underlying ideology of population management.

In other words, you can pile all the money you want on a dead horse... it's never going to win another race.

To all interested parties here, If you have not yet read Alberta's Fish Conservation and Management Strategy then you won't understand what needs to be changed.

http://issuu.com/esrd/docs/fish_conservation_and_management_st?e=12110136/8768768

They are not currently following their guiding principles.

[pikeman06]

Tag system leads to way more abuse of the resource. I've heard guys bragging about catching a hundred wallies on a tag. "No game warden around don't seal the tag." "Just put your wallies on the seat beside you, if you don't get pulled over don't seal the tag" etc etc. It's like everything anymore. There's always someone grossly abusing the system. Don't kid yourselves.

[huntsfurfish]

Tag system leads to way more abuse of the resource. I've heard guys bragging about catching a hundred wallies on a tag. "No game warden around don't seal the tag." "Just put your wallies on the seat beside you, if you don't get pulled over don't seal the tag" etc etc. It's like everything anymore. There's always someone grossly abusing the system. Don't kid yourselves.

So open it up so people dont have to do that.:sHa_sarcasticlol:

[bobalong]

This ideas was presented to F/W at a Fisheries Rountable in about 2006. Looked like a great idea........rejected because they didn't have the staff to monitor them. F/W were presented with many good ideas at these meetings, but at the time did not accept any of them. I believe the cost at that time was about 5000.00 for each "micropond". I can't remember the increase in survival rates but it was substantial.
I don't know, but think this could also work well for pike and perch.

There were quite a few members from clubs there that said they could raise that amount fairly easily, so there would be no setup cost to the government, with the exception of some monitoring. F/W said they did not have the budget for monitoring these.........:mad0100:

http://lloydfishandgame.org/micro-pond/

[RavYak]

Would more funding help, would it be a big part of the solution?

Imo more funding would not necessarily help and any extra funding could be used in much more productive areas such as increasing enforcement, repairing waterways(like the rivers they want to close now) etc.

I think the netting every 5 years as they currently do(for the most part) is reasonable. I just wish they did a better job of doing every lake within that time period. Extra netting for lakes like Pigeon etc to try and stay on top of the tag system has led to some lakes not being netted in years. Some of which like say Calling could provide valuable information about other walleye management strategies(hence maybe why it hasn't been netted recently?).

DO you even know why you want a slot limit?

Slot limits were originally used to allow the removal of eating size fish. Which are usually far from spawning age. Is that what you want? If so that would be a mistake.

Slot limits above the spawning age is just the lower limit where it currently is with a maximum size to protect a larger size. This would be an appropriate selection for quality fisheries. However, the comment by Rav about stunting is unlikely to be the case because of keeping of fish and more likely the result of few fish making it much over that limit before being removed. If you are looking to keep fish than the slot will restrict your ability to keep, even more than current regs.

More testing is needed to make better judgement/decisions. How do you determine limits? Or slot sizes? Slots to be safe without much monitoring If you dont get it(monitoring) than what we have is best and should not stray to far.

Knowing what you want and why is important.

A slot size does not have to be for prime eating size fish. A slot is simply a range and it can be set in a number of ways.

Minimum size limits work, AEP told us this and there are reports that say this as well. They and C&R were successfully used to recover our walleye fisheries here in AB. The problem with them is that they lead to smaller fish because all the bigger fish are taken out leading to only small fish remaining which causes genetic stunting over time. They call this the hockey stick effect because a lake will create a self imposed size limit and the fish will appear to flatline at that size regardless of age(due to being naturally smaller fish just like short humans).

If you want some light reading on the subject one of our provinces bios did a report on different options and there is a lot of good information on what does and doesn't work and the potential and actual effects of changing limits on lakes in Alberta.

https://era.library.ualberta.ca/files/pr76f341v/Spencer_Stephen_Spring%202010.pdf

This was a well executed program and it does clearly show that limits of 43 cm max, 43 cm min and slot limits of 40-50 cm are not effective but to me that doesn't mean anything as I would never expect those limits to be effective on areas with significant fishing pressure because they all mean too many young fish are removed.

One other major thing that was also not taken into account in this study was the effects due to the micro management of a few waterbodies while many other lakes had restrictive regulations. The effects of this are clear in his studies when he comments on how the pressure decreased on Smoke and skyrocketed on Iosegun with the changes implemented and then how the pressure returned to Smoke after Iosegun was fished to unsatisfactory levels.

What I would like to see is the effects of a province wide slot size that starts at at least 45 cm if not 50 cm and only 1 fish for most lakes(there are a few that can sustain higher though). There are only 2 lakes in AB that I know of with such regulations and both have healthy balanced walleye populations. I believe with the proper upper slot limit size that some fish would survive through the slot and then be able to reproduce for many more years allowing their spawn to compete against the hockey stick population. No matter what changes are made(slot, minimum sizes etc) I believe they have to be made province wide as it balances the fishing pressure.

The argument for the tag system is that it allows the ability to control the fish size/populations but as is clearly laid out in the report it is costly and requires regular and accurate population and fishing pressure estimates in order to be truly effective. It is a method that can work but I believe it is a waste of money and unnecessary at this time(and I will continue to believe so until I see evidence that a proper slot would not be effective).

Lakes close to the city like Pigeon can stay tags, in a way it would actually help the other lakes because many people like having close options even if they are just C&R but I think even they can get by on a slot limit(or even minimum size limit) and the hockey stick phenomenon isn't that serious as it can also be combated by occasional stocking from healthy genetic sources.

If you are looking to keep fish than the slot will restrict your ability to keep, even more than current regs.

This just blows my mind. How could a slot limit possibly further restrict our ability to keep walleye? Our ability to keep walleye from all but a small handful of lakes is negligible at the moment to the point where I can count the number of walleye I have kept this year on one hand even though I have caught over 200 from a number of lakes. Our current regulations are extremely restrictive unless you live by or are willing to travel to lakes like Slave etc that still have open limits. Something I and many others aren't that willing to do for only 1 fish limits(which is another reason I believe a 1 fish slot limit would be effective).

[SNAPFisher]

This ideas was presented to F/W at a Fisheries Rountable in about 2006. Looked like a great idea........rejected because they didn't have the staff to monitor them. F/W were presented with many good ideas at these meetings, but at the time did not accept any of them. I believe the cost at that time was about 5000.00 for each "micropond". I can't remember the increase in survival rates but it was substantial.
I don't know, but think this could also work well for pike and perch.

There were quite a few members from clubs there that said they could raise that amount fairly easily, so there would be no setup cost to the government, with the exception of some monitoring. F/W said they did not have the budget for monitoring these.........:mad0100:

http://lloydfishandgame.org/micro-pond/

That is sad. Budget for monitoring?? I wonder what they want to monitor. Talk about a huge cop out.

I was curious about "monitoring" in Wisconsin since they seem to have no troubles with fish farming. I found this:

http://www.fondriest.com/news/gis-mapping-tool-will-help-wisconsin-fish-farm-startups-plot-their-ponds.htm

What is interesting is overall how much the ideas are embraced...and innovated. Not to mention the fish farm numbers reported in his article. I know they are used for other purposes as in the "commercial" - from farm to table - but it is really run more like an overall business than a government program.

[huntsfurfish]

First of all the old anglers per waterbody argument is severely overplayed on this forum and is next to meaningless. If you want to actually compare provinces in this manner you need to look at the primary people holding areas(say 3 hrs surrounding every city), data for which I do not believe is available. If you did this the angler/waterbody or area of water would skyrocket in most other provinces because most of their waterbodies are inaccessible or rarely accessed by their primary fishing populations.

Alberta on the other hand only has a handful of very remote waterbodies that don't see regular pressure and outside of the few major lakes close to Edmonton/Red Deer/Calgary our fishing pressure is spread out pretty effectively.

If you have ever fished any of these other provinces you will know that there are many lakes/rivers in some of these other provinces that see just as much if not more pressure then our AB waterbodies see. I know I have seen it in both SK and BC as well as many times in fishing shows etc for ON.


Back to the walleye topic.


Your comments regarding Chin are a great example of why the tag system is not the solution here in AB. The only way to properly micromanage a lake by controlling tag numbers requires in depth population estimates every couple years at least. Netting is the main way they get this information but that is not a good means especially on a year to year or every other year basis as their is significant mortality associated with that netting.

Chin is an example why test netting should be done and more frequently. Nothing to do with tag system. If it was tested every 2 years they could have adjusted 3 fish to 1 and still had ample time to see the effects that move had. Test netting mortality is acceptable in most Provinces and States. Other means are available as well I believe. But they are critical to making decisions.

The only way the tag system is effective with lack of perfect micromanaging is if it is used like it currently is on Pigeon and Ste. Anne where the lakes are overpopulated and the tag numbers are set low to ensure there are not too many fish removed. That has other negative effects though because it screws up the lakes ecosystem and decimates other fish species populations as is completely obvious on those lakes both of which used to have populations of pike, perch and whitefish all of which are now lacking and not really recovering even though the limits have been closed for some time now(for pike anyways)...


Better to remove to few than to many. Patience may be required. Cant really blame tags when population was already to great:)


I am vehemently against a province wide tag system because I know it won't be managed properly and all it is going to do is ruin these waterbodies. If they want to use it on the lakes close to city that do see signifcant pressure like Pigeon etc do then I am ok with that but implementing these on every lake across the province and them now wanting to do so for pike as well is utterly ridiculous and is going to do far more harm then good.

I also am against province wide tag system. But not for your reasons. Last resort to me. I also think close to large cities tags are a good option. For pike too.

Alternatives to the tag system are minimum size limits which have proven effective(and which for the record AEP also says are effective minus the stunted average size) and slot limits which have all the advantages of a minimum size limit plus give a population of larger fish as well.

Agree, but with the comment that if to many fish are removed the upper limit is unneeded or useless

AEP really likes to focus on walleye, grayling and bull trout but they keep doing so at the expense of other species and it is time that they step back and realize what they are doing and start making some better decisions regarding the big picture of fish populations and angling in Alberta.

Its true that trout and walleye get the most attention and more focus has been made on Bulls and grayling which is good and largely the first 2 because they are way more popular.

Bottom line more money would help to reduce test netting intervals and some could be used or directed to enforcement(not like that hasnt been suggested before). More money for test netting would allow for better decisions on limits and opening/closing fisheries or adjusting to rising/falling populations. Test nets do not just monitor one species either.

[huntsfurfish]

Imo more funding would not necessarily help and any extra funding could be used in much more productive areas such as increasing enforcement, repairing waterways(like the rivers they want to close now) etc.

Thats just a cop out same with Brandonkop. More money for better testing intervals might have actually eliminated the need to shut down many of those waters!Still talking walleye, enforcement would be another good use for more and larger budget.

I think the netting every 5 years as they currently do(for the most part) is reasonable. I just wish they did a better job of doing every lake within that time period. Extra netting for lakes like Pigeon etc to try and stay on top of the tag system has led to some lakes not being netted in years. Some of which like say Calling could provide valuable information about other walleye management strategies(hence maybe why it hasn't been netted recently?).

Highly disagree, see answer above. Your answer(second line on)would benefit/solve your issue from more money. lol

A slot size does not have to be for prime eating size fish. A slot is simply a range and it can be set in a number of ways.

Minimum size limits work, AEP told us this and there are reports that say this as well. They and C&R were successfully used to recover our walleye fisheries here in AB. The problem with them is that they lead to smaller fish because all the bigger fish are taken out leading to only small fish remaining which causes genetic stunting over time. They call this the hockey stick effect because a lake will create a self imposed size limit and the fish will appear to flatline at that size regardless of age(due to being naturally smaller fish just like short humans).

Am aware of how slots work. Could possibly help to create quality walleye fisheries in some instances.


If you want some light reading on the subject one of our provinces bios did a report on different options and there is a lot of good information on what does and doesn't work and the potential and actual effects of changing limits on lakes in Alberta.

https://era.library.ualberta.ca/files/pr76f341v/Spencer_Stephen_Spring%202010.pdf

This was a well executed program and it does clearly show that limits of 43 cm max, 43 cm min and slot limits of 40-50 cm are not effective but to me that doesn't mean anything as I would never expect those limits to be effective on areas with significant fishing pressure because they all mean too many young fish are removed.

Agree

One other major thing that was also not taken into account in this study was the effects due to the micro management of a few waterbodies while many other lakes had restrictive regulations. The effects of this are clear in his studies when he comments on how the pressure decreased on Smoke and skyrocketed on Iosegun with the changes implemented and then how the pressure returned to Smoke after Iosegun was fished to unsatisfactory levels.

What I would like to see is the effects of a province wide slot size that starts at at least 45 cm if not 50 cm and only 1 fish for most lakes(there are a few that can sustain higher though). There are only 2 lakes in AB that I know of with such regulations and both have healthy balanced walleye populations. I believe with the proper upper slot limit size that some fish would survive through the slot and then be able to reproduce for many more years allowing their spawn to compete against the hockey stick population. No matter what changes are made(slot, minimum sizes etc) I believe they have to be made province wide as it balances the fishing pressure.

The argument for the tag system is that it allows the ability to control the fish size/populations but as is clearly laid out in the report it is costly and requires regular and accurate population and fishing pressure estimates in order to be truly effective. It is a method that can work but I believe it is a waste of money and unnecessary at this time(and I will continue to believe so until I see evidence that a proper slot would not be effective).

Lakes close to the city like Pigeon can stay tags, in a way it would actually help the other lakes because many people like having close options even if they are just C&R but I think even they can get by on a slot limit(or even minimum size limit) and the hockey stick phenomenon isn't that serious as it can also be combated by occasional stocking from healthy genetic sources.



This just blows my mind. How could a slot limit possibly further restrict our ability to keep walleye? Our ability to keep walleye from all but a small handful of lakes is negligible at the moment to the point where I can count the number of walleye I have kept this year on one hand even though I have caught over 200 from a number of lakes. Our current regulations are extremely restrictive unless you live by or are willing to travel to lakes like Slave etc that still have open limits. Something I and many others aren't that willing to do for only 1 fish limits(which is another reason I believe a 1 fish slot limit would be effective).

If a limit is set to say 45-60 for example. You cant keep any over 60. Pretty simple. Not that it matters to me cuz I keep very few fish.

Brandon, Rav, Kurt more test netting is really really uge in keeping things good. Sad you cant see that. More money would be needed for that. Sad you cant see how that fits too.

[RavYak]

It is not a cop out. There are millions upon millions that could be spent in better ways then extra netting/population estimates for every lake.

We are talking taxpayers money, not only could it go to F&W enforcement but to healthcare, road maintenance and so many other things.

Even as a hardcore fisherman population estimates/netting are quite low on my need to have more funding for and I don't feel the need to increase taxes in order to pay for more netting...

I would rather have simpler regs that can still properly manage walleye populations without having the need for extra close and expensive monitoring.

[huntsfurfish]

Doesnt need to be every lake.

Yes money should go to healthcare and education. And how do you justify it.

But that was an argument I made before as well. Fisheries have been on the cheap for decades. And I would rather have testing than more enforcement.

[Kurt505]

If a limit is set to say 45-60 for example. You cant keep any over 60. Pretty simple. Not that it matters to me cuz I keep very few fish.

Brandon, Rav, Kurt more test netting is really really uge in keeping things good. Sad you cant see that. More money would be needed for that. Sad you cant see how that fits too.

What's sad is that you think money is going to magically show up and save our fisheries.

Don't you get it??? Extra money isn't going to be a part of the equation so we need to figure out a way with the budget they're working with!!!

Wholly smokes man.....

[RavYak]

Doesnt need to be every lake.

So you are on the same page as me that tags should only be used on the handful of lakes within close vicinity to the major city centers then?

[RavYak]

Test netting kills percentage points of walleye population every time they do it. If the bio has an issue with C&R mortality he must have an issue with regular netting as well...

[huntsfurfish]

Im really quite content with the way it is. You guys want change.
The changes you want require good monitoring. For crying out loud read your own posts.
Kurt you wanted suggestions. Lobby for more funding. You 3 can just keep whining.

Sheesh.

[huntsfurfish]

Test netting kills percentage points of walleye population every time they do it. If the bio has an issue with C&R mortality he must have an issue with regular netting as well...

Ok lets just guess:snapoutofit:

Done

Walleyedude, hold the door.:)

[Kurt505]

Im really quite content with the way it is. You guys want change.
The changes you want require good monitoring. For crying out loud read your own posts.
Kurt you wanted suggestions. Lobby for more funding. You 3 can just keep whining.

Sheesh.

We were looking for a suggestions to help our fisheries.....


Brilliant plan....... more money!

Why didn't I, and every other person on the planet see that as the solution?

How about this, if you're going to wish for world piece, or more funding being directed towards our fisheries, wouldn't a stoking program along with retention make more sense???

I don't mind if you let the door slam, actually prefer it.

[RavYak]

Im really quite content with the way it is. You guys want change.
The changes you want require good monitoring. For crying out loud read your own posts.
Kurt you wanted suggestions. Lobby for more funding. You 3 can just keep whining.

Sheesh.

I think it is the other way around. You are arguing for things to stay the same way they are which is change... The walleye regulations are being changed every year to convert more and more lakes to tags without proper monitoring...

My method of slot limit does not require good monitoring. Nor does a minimum limit. Read the report... 50 cm minimum size limit is good enough to recover(not just maintain, recover) walleye on our lakes.

The only reason the tag system is being used is to confront the issues of the hockey stick fish stunting which could lead to long term issues. It isn't being used because it is the only way to maintain our walleye numbers, it is being used to try to have better control of the size of the fish.

A slot limit also helps combat hockey stick growth, as does stocking. The tag system is far from our only option.

Ok lets just guess:snapoutofit:

Done

Walleyedude, hold the door.:)

I don't guess. I read the facts provided to me by the government... You should try doing the same so that we can converse in an intelligent argument rather then having to listen to you spout crap like this.

Don't worry though I will do the leg work... Here is the blanket statement provided on every netting report. The actual estimated percent of each test is also given.

http://i66.tinypic.com/15hn2u0.jpg

We are talking 100's if not 1000's of walleye killed in test nets every year and you want to make it a more regular occurrence? Maybe we should just get rid of the netting period, then there would for sure be enough walleye for the recreational fishermen...

[RavYak]

After thinking about it more I bet a 50 cm size minimum(no slot) province wide would also be effective.

The problem with the previous 50 cm size was that not enough fish were getting big. But the reasons for that were 2 fold.

A) It was being used on lakes that were open to retention while other lakes were C&R or tags. This leads to uneven fishing pressure.

B) The limit was usually 3 which was too high on some if not most of these lakes.

If they set a province wide 1 over 50 cm limit then some lakes that see tons of pressure would still not grow many big fish(like say Pigeon) but that wouldn't really change things that much as even with the tag system there are very few fish over 55 cm...

Lakes that see less pressure would still produce bigger fish(Slave Lake being an obvious example that continues to produce fish even with a 43 cm limit).

Then if necessary to control populations of small fish on certain lakes that are being overrun they could use a tag system for those small fish. Say tags for 40-50 cm and set the tag numbers a bit low so it doesn't require yearly monitoring but still helps to reduce the number of small fish allowing the rest to grow faster and bigger.

[fish99]

how about a yearly limit on fish retention for example Chinook salmon at 15 a year you keep your limit you are done for the year. lakes with low catch rates will see low fishermen days. lakes with over populations will see more angler days . eventually the populations will balance out and size and species will increase . no one needs 50 fish days ,where is the challenge in that.

[huntsfurfish]

I think it is the other way around. You are arguing for things to stay the same way they are which is change... The walleye regulations are being changed every year to convert more and more lakes to tags without proper monitoring...

I am not against 1 fish limits been speaking out for that for quite some time. I do not even oppose slot limits as long as they are post spawning age. And as said 1 fish blanket limit will just result in closed fisheries because of fishing pressure(closest to cities crashing first then going to the next lake and over fishing it......
Closer monitoring allows for quicker response time. Doesnt have to be every lake and it doesnt need to be every year, some discretion could be used.

My method of slot limit does not require good monitoring. Nor does a minimum limit. Read the report... 50 cm minimum size limit is good enough to recover(not just maintain, recover) walleye on our lakes.

No it doesnt, but would benefit from it(talk about keeping things the same:) Last sentence yes if fishing pressure and other are under control. 50cm can still fail if to many fish are removed.

The only reason the tag system is being used is to confront the issues of the hockey stick fish stunting which could lead to long term issues. It isn't being used because it is the only way to maintain our walleye numbers, it is being used to try to have better control of the size of the fish.

A slot limit also helps combat hockey stick growth, as does stocking. The tag system is far from our only option.



I don't guess. I read the facts provided to me by the government... You should try doing the same so that we can converse in an intelligent argument rather then having to listen to you spout crap like this.

I have read it too. If you are not guessing, im not sure what you are doing. lol

Don't worry though I will do the leg work... Here is the blanket statement provided on every netting report. The actual estimated percent of each test is also given.

http://i66.tinypic.com/15hn2u0.jpg

We are talking 100's if not 1000's of walleye killed in test nets every year and you want to make it a more regular occurrence? Maybe we should just get rid of the netting period, then there would for sure be enough walleye for the recreational fishermen...

You realise they used to commercial fish most lakes right.
Got it no test netting because RAV cant keep them. Doesnt matter that they get valuable information from it.

I also do think 1 fish limits are the way to go. But not blanket though, other tools required such as tags possibly some others too.

Do not underestimate the fishermen. They can take a tremendous amount of fish.

1 fish limit province wide with minimal testing sounds like a winner.

Have fun Rav for the first couple years!:sHa_sarcasticlol::)

Then they will very likely be back to shutting them down.

[huntsfurfish]

After thinking about it more I bet a 50 cm size minimum(no slot) province wide would also be effective.

The problem with the previous 50 cm size was that not enough fish were getting big. But the reasons for that were 2 fold.

A) It was being used on lakes that were open to retention while other lakes were C&R or tags. This leads to uneven fishing pressure.

Even 1 fish limits will create uneven fishing pressure

B) The limit was usually 3 which was too high on some if not most of these lakes.

Yes and if we had shorter testing intervals that would have been caught and had the option of going to 1 fish earlier which might have helped correct before having to close the fishing(o limit).

If they set a province wide 1 over 50 cm limit then some lakes that see tons of pressure would still not grow many big fish(like say Pigeon) but that wouldn't really change things that much as even with the tag system there are very few fish over 55 cm...

Lakes that see less pressure would still produce bigger fish(Slave Lake being an obvious example that continues to produce fish even with a 43 cm limit).

Then if necessary to control populations of small fish on certain lakes that are being overrun they could use a tag system for those small fish. Say tags for 40-50 cm and set the tag numbers a bit low so it doesn't require yearly monitoring but still helps to reduce the number of small fish allowing the rest to grow faster and bigger.

Still think better monitoring intervals would help no matter what type of limit or regs in place. While it is true may not get the money for it. Definitely harder to get if we dont ask for it. It is also true that some if not most of the waters that were shut down and are currently being shut down probably would not have been or would have been delayed at least if intervals were shorter.

Just want to add that there are only so many fish to go round no matter what the size/limit. You can not change that.

Seeings how I can not get you guys to see the benefits of more testing/money. I will leave it to you guys.
You guys wouldnt be Doctors or engineers if you were not smart. You have my respect for that.
But I am now out of this.

[huntsfurfish]

oops

[SNAPFisher]

how about a yearly limit on fish retention for example Chinook salmon at 15 a year you keep your limit you are done for the year. lakes with low catch rates will see low fishermen days. lakes with over populations will see more angler days . eventually the populations will balance out and size and species will increase . no one needs 50 fish days ,where is the challenge in that.

Good add. This will the slot size limit would be a way to stop those that would continue to take advantage of that 1 fish limit. Of course if anglers would honour that system which is something I think we have to assume in any case.

One other idea,
I still think the tag system could be modified if some here feel that the 2 or 3 limit a year is too restrictive. What about allowing up to two draw wins then for anglers? With the rule that the wins must be from separate area. Example, I didn't get my Pigeon first choice but I did win by 2nd choice at WhiteFish Lake in NB1...booya!
What if you won both PP2 and NB1. Say 3 under 43 cm at Buck and 3 over 50 cm at Wolf. Does that sound a bit more appealing?

Honestly, I would be in favor on trying something of the other ideas that others have posted here.

[SNAPFisher]

On the subject of more funding such as HuntsFurFish has brought up. I'm not sure who here follows AFGA but here is a good read on where funding sits:

http://www.afga.org/pdf/NEWS/NR2017/NR-2017-03-20-Budget.pdf

.08%.... WTF are you going to innovate or change with that? So when Kurt says if your there is not going to be any more funding and asks what can you do with what you have, that is valid. The answer is, probably not a hell of a lot if you leave it in the Governments hands with a low on the totem pole, year after year, government run program.

So the answer to me is, industry partnerships and to foster innovation with them...not turn a blind eye on them. Putting in a frame work, if we call it that, the Government has to work with other stakeholder like AFGA, on a yearly basis, is change I would love to see. It is clear that leaving it in the hands of the Government is just not going to improve things over time.

The single most disturbing post on here to me is the last one from Bobalong. There is a clear example of innovation being squashed. That is an opportunity and solution brought to government that, instead of being embraced and worked through, barriers are put up so that it didn't go further. That is wrong thinking and a shame.

[deschambault]

No one has mentioned southern reservoirs here. F&W has essentially placed a blanket no retention of pike or walleye on all the reservoirs near Calgary. This is despite the abundance of both species in many of these lakes. Why not have a 1 fish per day limit for 1 month or some other idea like that that should be relatively easy to monitor. You could apply for tags with dates on them so they could only be used at one per day. It just seems sad that I have to drive to Saskatchewan to eat a fish when I can catch at least as many close to home. I mainly practice catch and release but do love to eat the odd fish.

[RavYak]

No one has mentioned southern reservoirs here. F&W has essentially placed a blanket no retention of pike or walleye on all the reservoirs near Calgary. This is despite the abundance of both species in many of these lakes. Why not have a 1 fish per day limit for 1 month or some other idea like that that should be relatively easy to monitor. You could apply for tags with dates on them so they could only be used at one per day. It just seems sad that I have to drive to Saskatchewan to eat a fish when I can catch at least as many close to home. I mainly practice catch and release but do love to eat the odd fish.

Yup, short sighted retention closures with no alternative actions taken first, typical AEP management right now. The limit was 3 over 50 on most of those lakes. Why wasn't 1 or 2 tried before setting it to 0? What is the reason for the closure when some of these lakes have lots of fish in them? The only potential reason seems to be to get a few larger fish before they implement tags...

Why did they bother leaving the few lakes open that they did? They don't like those lakes so want them to see significant pressure increases? At least the destruction of PCR probably helped take a lot of that load this year.

Pretty sad seeing what Alberta anglers have to resort to in order to get a feed of fish these days. Hey at least you can buy high quality tuna, halibut, lobster etc cheaper then what it costs to go get a feed of fish locally though...

[huntsfurfish]

Ok one last post.:)

My first encounter I think, was about twenty years ago or so but might have been 25, with a Southern Bio. The testing intervals were the pretty much the same then. And was told that was a budget thing.
Just so you know that this is not new.
And in that time frame populations and pressures have increased a lot.


I am from Lethbridge. I fish the Southern Reservoirs lots.

In a nine year span with only one test period. What could possibly go wrong? See post 142 and 143.

I have to say it, but I dont totally disagree with shutting things down when they are not being monitored very well. Would rather see them error on that side than keeping it open and maybe crashing. Now had it been a 2 year interval for example all those lakes could have gone to 1 fish from 3 and left open to see what the results are(and quite likely would still be good:)).

And if the test netting was a bad sample due to error or other reasons a second sample (immediate-preferable, or even in 2 years hopefully caught sooner) then waiting for another 5 years.

We also have a new government that might be a little more inclined to help with that.
Is more money and testing the answer?
It could have been.
And it could still be.
But it would still require some other changes.

One other thing, I dont have to convince Rav, Brandon, or the other guy:).
I just have to show or convince others of the benefits.:)

That is all:)

Edit: I do not work for the government. So the only thing I would get out of this or benefit would be better fishing.:sHa_shakeshout:

[RavYak]

I have to say it, but I dont totally disagree with shutting things down when they are not being monitored very well. Would rather see them error on that side than keeping it open and maybe crashing. Now had it been a 2 year interval for example all those lakes could have gone to 1 fish from 3 and left open to see what the results are(and quite likely would still be good:)).

What you say would make sense but only if you truly believe there was reason to worry about these lakes crashing? From what I have seen and heard that is not the case at least in a few of the waterbodies.

Case in point netting data for Eagle Lake the year before it was closed.

http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/fisheries-management/fall-index-netting/fall-index-netting-summaries/documents/EagleLake-FallIndexNettingReport-2015.pdf

I see a healthy population of walleye with multiple younger age classes below the 50 cm limit that was current at the time as well as a few fish over it. I also see a pike population that is perhaps a little low for numbers(likely in part due to large population of small walleye) but has a good distribution of size and a decent number of small pike(which I find is often understated on these reports I believe due to the fact that small pike are usually hiding in the middle of the weed beds versus where they set these nets to try and catch walleye). I see a lake that is on par with many others across the province that see far less fishing pressure and in no way do I see anything that makes me think it had to be closed to retention.

Sure the lake doesn't quite meet representative lakes with sustainable harvest for both walleye and pike but if you review the netting data as much as I do you would realize they are unrealistic. Maybe possible for a lake to meet one or the other but very rarely ever both. Nor would I ever expect a lake like Eagle in such close proximity to a major city center to meet such idealised values.

That is just one example though.

We also have unwarranted river closures being proposed. Lakes closed prematurely due to worries about winter kill such as Cross Lake(which remains closed even though reports are of healthy populations, another lake which I forgot the name of was similarly just closed and quickly reopened though). Lakes with large walleye populations and no limit(Bellevue was a good example that they finally reopened albeit only for tags after large outcry and finally some netting data).

The examples are many and the reasons are often unsubstantiated. Similar to what you said I don't have to convert you. What I hope to do is open the eyes of other anglers to realize that AEP does not act on behalf of fishermen. They have a number of environmental and biological requirements that come first in their job and that is why they are more then happy to close waterbodies or set zero limits since it makes their job easier... There are often ways of reaching their goals(at least potential ways) that can be first attempted but we as anglers need to stand up(when necessary) and hold them accountable in order for them to try all these other avenues first.

[Kurt505]

Ok one last post.:)

My first encounter I think, was about twenty years ago or so but might have been 25, with a Southern Bio. The testing intervals were the pretty much the same then. And was told that was a budget thing.
Just so you know that this is not new.
And in that time frame populations and pressures have increased a lot.


I am from Lethbridge. I fish the Southern Reservoirs lots.

In a nine year span with only one test period. What could possibly go wrong? See post 142 and 143.

I have to say it, but I dont totally disagree with shutting things down when they are not being monitored very well. Would rather see them error on that side than keeping it open and maybe crashing. Now had it been a 2 year interval for example all those lakes could have gone to 1 fish from 3 and left open to see what the results are(and quite likely would still be good:)).

And if the test netting was a bad sample due to error or other reasons a second sample (immediate-preferable, or even in 2 years hopefully caught sooner) then waiting for another 5 years.

We also have a new government that might be a little more inclined to help with that.
Is more money and testing the answer?
It could have been.
And it could still be.
But it would still require some other changes.

One other thing, I dont have to convince Rav, Brandon, or the other guy:).
I just have to show or convince others of the benefits.:)

That is all:)

Edit: I do not work for the government. So the only thing I would get out of this or benefit would be better fishing.:sHa_shakeshout:


I don't think you convinced anyone of anything. EVERYONE on the planet could tell you with more money it would solve the problem, heck if they had more money they could fire the biologists because they wouldn't need testing, they could just keep stocking the lakes and leave it at a 5 fish per person limit!!!


More money...... whoda thunk it. :snapoutofit:

[huntsfurfish]

I don't think you convinced anyone of anything. EVERYONE on the planet could tell you with more money it would solve the problem, heck if they had more money they could fire the biologists because they wouldn't need testing, they could just keep stocking the lakes and leave it at a 5 fish per person limit!!!


More money...... whoda thunk it. :snapoutofit:

You really need to think before you type.:)

Had more money for testing been available as little as 10 years ago some of these lakes likely would have gone to 1 fish limit from 3 like what you and others are asking for.:snapoutofit::sign0176:

Last post to someone that has threatened me on here.:thinking-006:

[huntsfurfish]

What you say would make sense but only if you truly believe there was reason to worry about these lakes crashing? From what I have seen and heard that is not the case at least in a few of the waterbodies.

Case in point netting data for Eagle Lake the year before it was closed.

http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/fisheries-management/fall-index-netting/fall-index-netting-summaries/documents/EagleLake-FallIndexNettingReport-2015.pdf

I see a healthy population of walleye with multiple younger age classes below the 50 cm limit that was current at the time as well as a few fish over it. I also see a pike population that is perhaps a little low for numbers(likely in part due to large population of small walleye) but has a good distribution of size and a decent number of small pike(which I find is often understated on these reports I believe due to the fact that small pike are usually hiding in the middle of the weed beds versus where they set these nets to try and catch walleye). I see a lake that is on par with many others across the province that see far less fishing pressure and in no way do I see anything that makes me think it had to be closed to retention.

Sure the lake doesn't quite meet representative lakes with sustainable harvest for both walleye and pike but if you review the netting data as much as I do you would realize they are unrealistic. Maybe possible for a lake to meet one or the other but very rarely ever both. Nor would I ever expect a lake like Eagle in such close proximity to a major city center to meet such idealised values.

That is just one example though.

We also have unwarranted river closures being proposed. Lakes closed prematurely due to worries about winter kill such as Cross Lake(which remains closed even though reports are of healthy populations, another lake which I forgot the name of was similarly just closed and quickly reopened though). Lakes with large walleye populations and no limit(Bellevue was a good example that they finally reopened albeit only for tags after large outcry and finally some netting data).

The examples are many and the reasons are often unsubstantiated. Similar to what you said I don't have to convert you. What I hope to do is open the eyes of other anglers to realize that AEP does not act on behalf of fishermen. They have a number of environmental and biological requirements that come first in their job and that is why they are more then happy to close waterbodies or set zero limits since it makes their job easier... There are often ways of reaching their goals(at least potential ways) that can be first attempted but we as anglers need to stand up(when necessary) and hold them accountable in order for them to try all these other avenues first.

We are talking walleye here. Doesnt matter what I think. And it doesnt matter what you think either. If AEP isnt comfortable with numbers they will error on the side of caution and shut the lake down. Remember 9 years is a long time. If those lakes are currently 3 fish, doesnt matter, it will go to zero.

I have probably read the same studies as you and then some over the course of time not that matters much. Just saying.

[Tofinoguy]

I'd be eating pretty good if i lived in Alberta

[RavYak]

We are talking walleye here. Doesnt matter what I think. And it doesnt matter what you think either. If AEP isnt comfortable with numbers they will error on the side of caution and shut the lake down. Remember 9 years is a long time. If those lakes are currently 3 fish, doesnt matter, it will go to zero.

I have probably read the same studies as you and then some over the course of time not that matters much. Just saying.

I am not only talking walleye nor will I as the big picture is what is important. Only talking walleye is what has got us to this point now where our perch, pike and whitefish populations are hurting on a number of these lakes. Not pushing back enough is what has lead to constant reductions in limits and closures relating to walleye, pike, cutties, grayling and more... I have only been fishing here for around 6-7 years now and it is disgusting how things have been changing even in that short time even though I would be willing to bet that the populations of these species province wide have likely increased over this time considering the restrictive regulations and changes like removal of commercial fishing etc.

And no it does not only matter what AEP thinks... That is my whole point... We as anglers(well some of us anyways) are capable of telling a sheep from a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Some more numbers regarding Eagle Lake.

Estimated walleye population in 2015, 238/0.013 = 28,300.

Estimated pike population, 40/0.003 = 13,300.

Thousands of fish and the "length distribution shows very strong recruitment" and "The fishery appears to be supported by several year-classes".

And the best part.

the large density of immature Walleye in Eagle Lake, dependant on its Fisheries Management Objectives, may provide opportunities for carefully managed harvests.

Good thing they closed retention!!!

Sad that AEP doesn't even take their own recommendations and that they choose to close these lakes to "achieve management objectives" whatever those might be... Whatever they are I guarantee you they are not in the anglers best interest...

[Kurt505]

You really need to think before you type.:)

Had more money for testing been available as little as 10 years ago some of these lakes likely would have gone to 1 fish limit from 3 like what you and others are asking for.:snapoutofit::sign0176:

Last post to someone that has threatened me on here.:thinking-006:

Brilliant!

Instead of spending money on restocking you'd rather see them spending money on restricting retention. LOL, why doesn't that surprise me?

You keep promising you'll stop, but you keep going. Probably just forgot hey? That would explain "more money" I guess.

Threaten you? ....... Bah hahaha! Before you start crying, remember who picked it. If you weren't being ignorant, I would still like you.

Now I just don't like you, but I'll still post my opinions.

[Brandonkop]

The Fraser River Sockeye run has been opened to recreational and commercial harvest this year, 2018. My other boat is out of commission so I have been going out on my 16 foot aluminum Spectrum. It works fairly well out in this area, just have to watch out for the winds picking up and head in before it gets too messy out there. I fish four rods and stack dummy flasher below my rods. Check out my set up in the video. I go through everything in detail at the beginning. I am no expert by any means. This was from my third time out this year. Since then I have been out 6 more times and I think I have been getting better every time out with how to handle the fish on the line and even learning the sockeye flop. Thanks to all the help I got online. It really was a game changer for me out there.

The fishery is still open for now and there are still guys getting their limits of nice fish. So if you want to hit it come on down, because it doesn't happen for another four years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ90NgzSqzs

[Brandonkop]

oop, delete.

[mclean]

A lot of interesting posts on walleye,pike, perch in Alberta, But in southern Alberta, South of the transcanada, No one has mentioned the water levels in our reservoirs which is probably one of the biggest factors on fisheries in the south,example last summer the water levels in St. Marys Res. Ridge Res. Chin res. and others have been drawn down to very low levels due to irrigation commitments, With the low water levels in the spring spawning fish lay eggs , then have a sudden increase of water in these res. a lot of the eggs are lost, creating a poor hatch, This seems to be a very common problem in Southern Alberta, I understand that the reservoirs are made for irrigation, But possibly too much water is being drawn from the system, Could there possibly be a better balance of water usage be put in place. We in the south do have a lot of dry years and the reservoirs do take a beating as well as the fishires.

[Salavee]

I think it is the other way around. You are arguing for things to stay the same way they are which is change... The walleye regulations are being changed every year to convert more and more lakes to tags without proper monitoring...

My method of slot limit does not require good monitoring. Nor does a minimum limit. Read the report... 50 cm minimum size limit is good enough to recover(not just maintain, recover) walleye on our lakes.

The only reason the tag system is being used is to confront the issues of the hockey stick fish stunting which could lead to long term issues. It isn't being used because it is the only way to maintain our walleye numbers, it is being used to try to have better control of the size of the fish.

A slot limit also helps combat hockey stick growth, as does stocking. The tag system is far from our only option.



I don't guess. I read the facts provided to me by the government... You should try doing the same so that we can converse in an intelligent argument rather then having to listen to you spout crap like this.

Don't worry though I will do the leg work... Here is the blanket statement provided on every netting report. The actual estimated percent of each test is also given.

http://i66.tinypic.com/15hn2u0.jpg

We are talking 100's if not 1000's of walleye killed in test nets every year and you want to make it a more regular occurrence? Maybe we should just get rid of the netting period, then there would for sure be enough walleye for the recreational fishermen...

When the Western Walleye Council funded the population structures of individual lakes back in the early '90s, we used electro fishing to obtain the age-structure samples required. We used a private firm to conduct the studies. It was intended to have all the primary lakes
in Alberta studied over time through proceeds from our Tournaments but unfortunately only three lakes were completed. As I recall ,they were Baptiste, Touchwood and Moose. You could see the current Walleye situation happening at that time. Too little, too late.