Government of Alberta January Public Engagement Sessions

[cube]

Not Sure if this Has Already been Posted Yet or Not. Sorry for the repeat if it has.

Government of Alberta January Public Engagement Sessions
http://aep.alberta.ca/about-us/public-engagement/events-and-info-sessions.aspx
Northern Pike and Walleye Public Information Session (Calgary)
Alberta Environment and Parks is hosting public information sessions to share the Draft Recreational Fisheries Management Frameworks for Northern Pike and Walleye and to hear your thoughts on proposed recreational fisheries management objectives.
Location:
Croatian Canadian Cultural Centre
3010 12 St NE,
Calgary, Alberta
Date:
January 10, 2018
Time:
6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Presentation at 6:30, open house to follow
Additional Details:
Information on the draft frameworks and the consultation lakes is available at: https://talkaep.alberta.ca/

Northern Pike and Walleye Public Information Session (Edmonton)
Alberta Environment and Parks is hosting public information sessions to share the Draft Recreational Fisheries Management Frameworks for Northern Pike and Walleye and to hear your thoughts on proposed recreational fisheries management objectives.
Location:
Kinsmen Banquet Centre
47 Riel Drive,
St. Albert, Alberta
Date:
January 11, 2018
Time:
6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Presentation at 6:30, open house to follow
Additional Details:
Information on the draft frameworks and the consultation lakes is available at: https://talkaep.alberta.ca/

Northern Pike and Walleye Public Information Session (Slave Lake)
Alberta Environment and Parks is hosting public information sessions to share the Draft Recreational Fisheries Management Frameworks for Northern Pike and Walleye and to hear your thoughts on proposed recreational fisheries management objectives.
Location:
Slave Lake Government Hub
101-3 Street SW,
Slave Lake, Alberta
Date:
January 17, 2018
Time:
6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Presentation at 6:30, open house to follow
Additional Details:
Information on the draft frameworks and the consultation lakes is available at: https://talkaep.alberta.ca/














Northern Pike and Walleye Public Information Session (Grande Prairie)
Alberta Environment and Parks is hosting public information sessions to share the Draft Recreational Fisheries Management Frameworks for Northern Pike and Walleye and to hear your thoughts on proposed recreational fisheries management objectives.
Location:
Montrose Cultural Center – Teresa Sargent Hall
9839-103 Avenue,
Grande Prairie, Alberta
Date:
January 18, 2018
Time:
6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Presentation at 6:30, open house to follow
Additional Details:
Information on the draft frameworks and the consultation lakes is available at: https://talkaep.alberta.ca/

Northern Pike and Walleye Public Information Session (Lac La Biche)
Alberta Environment and Parks is hosting public information sessions to share the Draft Recreational Fisheries Management Frameworks for Northern Pike and Walleye and to hear your thoughts on proposed recreational fisheries management objectives.
Location:
Bold Centre
Devon Room
8702 91 Avenue,
Lac La Biche, Alberta
Date:
January 22, 2018
Time:
6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Presentation at 6:30, open house to follow
Additional Details:
Information on the draft frameworks and the consultation lakes is available at: https://talkaep.alberta.ca/

Publicly Organized
Publicly organized - Angling Regulation Changes (Lac Bellevue Hall) – January 16
Topic: Discuss Proposed Changes to Fishing Regulations
January 16, 2018 at 7:00 pm
Lac Bellevue Hall (located on Hwy 881 - 12 miles south of St. Paul)
This is your opportunity to hear from the Alberta Government the proposed changes and to provide your comments on your preferred fish management options and regulations
Contact Ray Mackowecki at Ray@enviromak.com

Edmonton Trout Club – North-Central Alberta Native Trout Recovery Plan (Edmonton) – January 16
Tuesday, January 16, 2018 - 7:00 PM - Regular Meeting @ Queen Mary Park Community Hall 10844 117 St. - Guest speaker Jessica Reilly - Senior Fisheries Biologist for Rocky Mountain House & Mike Blackburn - Senior Fish Biologist for Edson about north central native trout recovery program.

[Stinky Buffalo]

Thanks for posting!

[SNAPFisher]

Thanks cube!

Why the 11th in Edmonton. The wife's Bday. "Gee honey, I'd love to celebrate your birthday but I'd rather attend this pike and walleye information session..."

Followed by silence and then my untimely demise...or is it deservedly :lol:

I'll be interested to hear feedback and then might try to attend the Lac Bell. one.

[PEIslander]

Bump.

The Calgary session is this week. While the intent of the sessions may be to go through the motions on the Pike & Walleye Management plans, it's a opportunity to get some face to face time with the Bio's and talk about other proposed changes in PP1 like those in the below link.

https://mywildalberta.ca/fishing/regulations/fisheries-management-changes.aspx

[cube]

Just wondering if anyone had any feedback from yesterdays Calgary meeting?

[Joe Quiroga]

Bump.

The Calgary session is this week. While the intent of the sessions may be to go through the motions on the Pike & Walleye Management plans, it's a opportunity to get some face to face time with the Bio's and talk about other proposed changes in PP1 like those in the below link.

https://mywildalberta.ca/fishing/regulations/fisheries-management-changes.aspx

Would be nice to see Tilley and Cowoki go to catch and release, which appears to be what they are intending for next season. Fishing out there has been pretty rough the last couple years.

[petecatch]

Angry with not being able to keep the occasional Pike next year at most of our larger lakes/reservoirs, joining Walleye?

Mad that our resources are being mismanaged by the government (Going from harvesting 3 pike to 0 between this year, whirling disease)?

Think that protecting some species (e.g. walleye), to the point that introduced walleye overrunning a lake impacts pike populations is bad management?

Believe that spending 10X less on stocking than other provinces and fewer non-native species, then claiming every lake with non-native fish should be self-sustaining and stopping harvest is not the solution?

Agree, that the recent online surveys are biased in their questions, designed to serve an agenda meanwhile give the illusion they've asked the public and received public approval?

Think that other provinces manage their resources more effectively?

Want to know the real reason these changes are being made and what they don't want you to know?

Sick of other provinces laughing at our fish management approaches?

Let's organize and be heard. This is one of the biggest changes to angling in our province that they are trying to slip by us whilst we're not paying attention.

Tonight:

Croatian Canadian Cultural Centre
3010 12 St NE,
Calgary, Alberta
Date:
January 10, 2018
Time:
6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Presentation at 6:30, open house to follow

[cheemo]

Got an email from a relative who is a fisheries biologist about these meetings. He is urging us to speak up at these meetings. He mentioned that the government website surveys only focused on catch and release, zero limits on pike, and tags for pike and walleye in some lakes. There was no option in the surveys for consumptive low risk harvesting of walleye and pike. The ecological imbalance suggests that walleye needs to be harvested in many lakes to allow pike, perch and whitefish to re-establish themselves.

[SNAPFisher]

Just wondering if anyone had any feedback from yesterdays Calgary meeting?

It states that it is tonight so has not happened yet.

Looks like Petecatch is suggesting some topics. I'm guessing that is one vote "against" :)

[Mikediz]

I will be there tonight and I hope we get a good public turn out who will provide constructive viewpoints and questions

[chuck0039]

I'm going to sit in on the meetings in St Albert tomorrow night with some friends.

If they are concerned about Walleye population collapsing in some lake, then why are they allowing the harvest of the breeding stock? Keep the tag system in place for the Class "B" and "C" get rid of Class "A" tags ( for now) and hire more enforcement to ensure people are adhering to it.

If they do make the limit for walleye and Pike zero, they will still need to hire more F & W officers. Unfortunately some People will still feel its their right to keep fish, legal or not.

I love to fish mostly for catch & Release but I do like to have a fish fry once or twice a year. I really hope they don't shut the lakes down and they keep the tag system in place.

[slough shark]

Would be nice to see Tilley and Cowoki go to catch and release, which appears to be what they are intending for next season. Fishing out there has been pretty rough the last couple years.

Don’t know about cowaki but I hope they don’t mess with Tilley, they really shouldn’t need to as it doesn’t get pounded by pressure like a lot of lakes closer to the cities. We already have enough c&r lakes, we don’t need to turn everything in Alberta into a lake where you can keep anything

[petecatch]

Been speaking to 2 AB bios this afternoon, here's what I found out.

There are main 2 drivers for these changes:

1. They want to save money on enforcement, and one of the considerations for going to zero limit on Pike is so that they don't have to enforce those lakes as often.

2. Dave Park etc. came up with a new system of measuring population sustainability called the Fish Sustainability Index (FSI) in 2013. It's Alberta made, by it's own admission flawed, doesn't have peer review support, isn't based on any literature and they haven't published any literature on it. We're the only jurisdiction using it. FWIN are done at least every 5 years, many of the lakes going to zero were done in 2012 (before FSI). They also think it's an awesome new system and think every other jurisdiction should be using it.

First thing it spits out? 0 limit for Pike at southern lakes and this year 0 limit for Pike at the remaining major lakes. All on draft FWIN's we don't get to see until after the regulation changes have been made.

Smell a fish? Seems like management came up with a system that doesn't work, a number of bios don't agree with it and they're in fear of their jobs. Bonus, F&W are happy with having less workload. Emperor's new clothes.

Dave Park is there tonite, question we should be asking him is why we're not using the accepted practices of fisheries management and using FSI instead when it's spitting out junk changes like this.

[slough shark]

Been speaking to 2 AB bios this afternoon, here's what I found out.

There are main 2 drivers for these changes:

1. They want to save money on enforcement, and one of the considerations for going to zero limit on Pike is so that they don't have to enforce those lakes as often.

2. Dave Park etc. came up with a new system of measuring population sustainability called the Fish Sustainability Index (FSI) in 2013. It's Alberta made, by it's own admission flawed, doesn't have peer review support, isn't based on any literature and they haven't published any literature on it. We're the only jurisdiction using it. FWIN are done at least every 5 years, many of the lakes going to zero were done in 2012 (before FSI). They also think it's an awesome new system and think every other jurisdiction should be using it.

First thing it spits out? 0 limit for Pike at southern lakes and this year 0 limit for Pike at the remaining major lakes. All on draft FWIN's we don't get to see until after the regulation changes have been made.

Smell a fish? Seems like management came up with a system that doesn't work, a number of bios don't agree with it and they're in fear of their jobs. Bonus, F&W are happy with having less workload. Emperor's new clothes.

Dave Park is there tonite, question we should be asking him is why we're not using the accepted practices of fisheries management and using FSI instead when it's spitting out junk changes like this.
I would suspect this model also says c&r for all walleye too in southern ab rather than allow some retention of them and solve the problem of reduced or collapsing populations of other species 🤔 you know god forbid actually address the main reason

[Couleestalker]

Would be nice to see Tilley and Cowoki go to catch and release, which appears to be what they are intending for next season. Fishing out there has been pretty rough the last couple years.

Seriously? How much fishing pressure are on these 2 lakes? Almost non existent in the summer as you are no even allowed gas powered motors on Tilley B, and very few people fish them in the winter compared to Newell, Rock, Kitsim, Badger, Crawling Valley and other unnamed lakes around Brooks. They commercial fished them until the closure and there was never a concern then. I would argue that these two reservoirs have some of the lowest angler hours out of all the reservoirs in and around the Brooks area. This will only ad to the fishing pressure in the remaining lakes that still allow some harvest.

I am starting to question the sampling methods and modelling the government is using to create these chages.

[Joe Quiroga]

Seriously? How much fishing pressure are on these 2 lakes? Almost non existent in the summer as you are no even allowed gas powered motors on Tilley B, and very few people fish them in the winter compared to Newell, Rock, Kitsim, Badger, Crawling Valley and other unnamed lakes around Brooks. They commercial fished them until the closure and there was never a concern then. I would argue that these two reservoirs have some of the lowest angler hours out of all the reservoirs in and around the Brooks area. This will only ad to the fishing pressure in the remaining lakes that still allow some harvest.

I am starting to question the sampling methods and modelling the government is using to create these chages.


Yes, seriously. It was commercially fished up to what 2013, 2014? Since then I've seen literal van loads of people / families filling buckets out there. One group I saw even had a table set up for gutting and scaling.

Cowoki is in even worse shape.

[Couleestalker]

Yes, seriously. It was commercially fished up to what 2013, 2014? Since then I've seen literal van loads of people / families filling buckets out there. One group I saw even had a table set up for gutting and scaling.

Cowoki is in even worse shape.

Filling buckets? So do mean they are taking more than they are allowed? Are the van loads of people targeting pike, or maybe they are catching whitefish, burbot, maybe the odd walleye.

Just shows that people enjoy eating fish they catch and its a perfect example of increased fishing pressure on a lake that historically very few people fish due to the mismanagement of all the other lakes and increased closures.

I routinely drive by both Tilley B and Cowoki. There are not that many people fishing these lakes.

[petecatch]

I would suspect this model also says c&r for all walleye too in southern ab rather than allow some retention of them and solve the problem of reduced or collapsing populations of other species 🤔 you know god forbid actually address the main reason
Correct.

Out of the 34 lakes surveyed this year on the new FSI system, Northern Pike are now at risk in 30 lakes, the majority Very High or High Risk, and 60% of these lakes are going Catch and Release and still Walleye lakes are C&R apart from the ones they want to start charging for tags. Tags generate more enforcement revenue.

Are you going tonight?

[Joe Quiroga]

Not saying there's anything illegal going on, just an observation.

I'm okay with it going to catch and release for a while, I think it needs it. Just my opinion though. Obviously I am in the minority on this one heh.

[PerchBuster]

http://www.outdoorcanada.ca/Why-you-should-always-always-ALWAYS-release-big-fish

Please read this link. I can’t make it to the meeting but I think this would be a great topic for one of you to bring up in the discussion in my stead as the info comes from highly respected sources backed by actual science. Our system is badly flawed in Alberta because our Gov issues tags for Walleye over 50 cm and other lakes with retention not requiring tags also are for keeping Walleye over 43 or 50cm. Think Slave, Moose, Cold, Calling etc. Same type of thing with Pike. I have been promoting for a long time now that we should be allowed to keep a modest/limited bag limit of undersized/juvenile fish for the table (eg only Walleye under 43cm) and large fish should be 100% released as they are the brood stock and breeders that will keep producing lots of juveniles for the table. The small ones are better table fare anyways. This article confirms what I have long suspected. If we keep all the large fish the lake will end up with all small fish that never get big. The genetics of the lake gets compromised. Reminds me of Pigeon, South Buck, Long, Slave, and many many more. 10 yrs ago 7-8 lb Walleye were common in Pigeon. Our Gov and fisheries managers have it completely backwards. Everything over 43cm or 50 cm whichever they decide should all go back and allow people to keep some small fish without the need for issuing tags. With a healthy population of large breeding stock and the ability to keep small fish from eating themselves out of house and home many lakes would come back and be in better shape. The forage base would have a chance to come back ie: shiners etc. It’s not a cookie cutter solution necessarily for every waterbody but the science seems to back it up and most lakes would do better and not have to be classified as collapsed for decade after decade. I am so glad I came across this as it reaffirms what I have long believed to be true. Our fisheries will never improve markedly even through complete closures so long as we continue to adopt the same old policies that have already failed now for many years and are proven not to work or improve the fishery. Our Gov is trying to stay on the same failed path again while trying to enhance and expand its ineffectiveness. I didn’t complete the Walleye survey because it was garbage and felt like it did not address the concerns and wants of those of us who utilize the resources. Every other jurisdiction in Canada and the US allow retention of small fish with C&R of all the larger specimens. Why do our experts in this Province continue to want to do exactly the opposite with the same failed results? It only makes perfect sense. I talk to people in other parts of the country who think we are completely nuts out here the way we manage our fisheries and I have to agree. What do you guys think about this? :sign0161:

[cheemo]

Not saying there's anything illegal going on, just an observation.

I'm okay with it going to catch and release for a while, I think it needs it. Just my opinion though. Obviously I am in the minority on this one heh.

I really don’t think catch and release is the answer. How many caught and released fish are wounded and end up dieing anyway?

[petecatch]

They do have it backwards. It was the typical gong show as usual. Started off telling us they were doing this for public engagement and feedback, now listen to a 1 hour presentation and we'll only allow you to discuss in the forum for 15 mins. Then after that, they wanted to disorganize the group and have them talk on one on ones.

A number of the questions were the typical technique "well we can't answer that now, find us later." in attempt to deflect.

The only way to effect change here is to organize into a group. They're not listening and have an agenda, the public consultation is an illusion to say they have agreement, it was clear at the meeting they obviously didn't, a number of people were vocal and some held them to task when they deflected.

Basically went something like this, start off with a biased survey towards Catch and Release, call it phase 1. Use that survey to conclude the consensus amongst anglers is catch and release and call it phase 2. Tell everybody at the meeting that's what anglers want.

[calgarygringo]

Both on the closure list for keepers coming up.

Filling buckets? So do mean they are taking more than they are allowed? Are the van loads of people targeting pike, or maybe they are catching whitefish, burbot, maybe the odd walleye.

Just shows that people enjoy eating fish they catch and its a perfect example of increased fishing pressure on a lake that historically very few people fish due to the mismanagement of all the other lakes and increased closures.

I routinely drive by both Tilley B and Cowoki. There are not that many people fishing these lakes.

[slough shark]

Correct.

Out of the 34 lakes surveyed this year on the new FSI system, Northern Pike are now at risk in 30 lakes, the majority Very High or High Risk, and 60% of these lakes are going Catch and Release and still Walleye lakes are C&R apart from the ones they want to start charging for tags. Tags generate more enforcement revenue.

Are you going tonight?

I didn’t go, perhaps I’m a little to jaded but from what I’ve seen whenever the government holds these “information and consultation sessions” they’re basically telling you what they plan on doing and showing up doesn’t change a thing. I’ve been seeing this coming for some time, I suspect other that trout ponds and perhaps whitefish and burbot and perch southern Alberta will be C&R entirely unless they do tags. The management or our fish and wildlife in our province is a disgrace and heads need to roll but they won’t 😡

[calgarygringo]

Most of the presentation info is online on their website anyways. I was hoping for more specific Southern Alberta conversation but there wasn't much as most of the presentation was in general. There was time to ask the individual guys in the regions and is where I got some info. Here are some looking like they are done for retention for this year so far.
https://i.imgur.com/1095W8t.jpg
They do have it backwards. It was the typical gong show as usual. Started off telling us they were doing this for public engagement and feedback, now listen to a 1 hour presentation and we'll only allow you to discuss in the forum for 15 mins. Then after that, they wanted to disorganize the group and have them talk on one on ones.

A number of the questions were the typical technique "well we can't answer that now, find us later." in attempt to deflect.

The only way to effect change here is to organize into a group. They're not listening and have an agenda, the public consultation is an illusion to say they have agreement, it was clear at the meeting they obviously didn't, a number of people were vocal and some held them to task when they deflected.

Basically went something like this, start off with a biased survey towards Catch and Release, call it phase 1. Use that survey to conclude the consensus amongst anglers is catch and release and call it phase 2. Tell everybody at the meeting that's what anglers want.

[slough shark]

Not saying there's anything illegal going on, just an observation.

I'm okay with it going to catch and release for a while, I think it needs it. Just my opinion though. Obviously I am in the minority on this one heh.

It won’t be for a while, when retention returns if it does anytime soon it be on a tag system, Tilley and cowaki get very low pressure, I’ve seen maybe 10-15 guys on any weekend I’ve ever gone out in the winter and when I’ve been there in the summer more often than not I was the only one.

[petecatch]

For Edmonton tonight, here are some of the misinformation and tactics they employed in Calgary last night:

1. Provide the misleading statistic that AB has 300 anglers per lake and SK has 2. Most lakes aren't fished in SK and are way up north.

2. Tell you that the survey overwhelming tells them we support C&R versus retention when the survey was designed to be biased.

3. Tell you stocking only has limited success, but not tell you that they also only stock 1/10th the fish of other provinces.

4. Tell you that slot size limits don't work, that widespread C&R is necessary.

5. Tell you that going C&R will recover the fishery, when 33% of C&R fish caught on bait and 60% of fish deeply hooked do not survive anyway. C&R / Retention (non commercial and slot limits) are about the same on fish stocks. Only closure or stocking recover stocks.

6. Tell you that fish suffer PTSD after being caught a number of times and just die. (which is supportive of closure)

7. Promote their new Alberta made Fish Sustainability Index. The 2 years it's been used has resulted in extensive changes to 0 limits, it's unproven and another experiment with our resources.

8. Dave Park and Bill Patterson (the main decision / policy makers) were present at the meeting last night, but weren't announced, didn't present and were keeping a low profile at the back of the room. These are the people that need to be held to account if you want to effect change, the biologists are just following directive.

Sure, they don't want to listen, they already have an agenda and they wish to give the illusion the fishing community wholeheartedly supports it to get adoption...

but it's the only opportunity as a group to make sure the individuals who have mismanaged our resources hear our views and take them into consideration, many can effect change.

If you still want to keep the occasional fillet or just believe we should go C&R and/or close most of our lakes to fishing, this is your chance to be heard.

[Walleyedude]

5. Tell you that going C&R will recover the fishery, when 33% of C&R fish caught on bait and 60% of fish deeply hooked do not survive anyway. C&R / Retention (non commercial and slot limits) are about the same on fish stocks. Only closure or stocking recover stocks.

To be clear, are THEY presenting the stat that "33% of C&R fish caught on bait and 60% of fish deeply hooked do not survive anyway" and only closure/stocking will recover populations, or is that YOUR opinion regarding C&R?

6. Tell you that fish suffer PTSD after being caught a number of times and just die. (which is supportive of closure)

This seems beyond ridiculous to me.

I think these meetings are 90% a sham, but that being said, with a loud enough voice and some form of a consensus among anglers (good luck with that), I believe it is possible to change how F&W regulates our fisheries.

[petecatch]

To be clear, are THEY presenting the stat that "33% of C&R fish caught on bait and 60% of fish deeply hooked do not survive anyway" and only closure/stocking will recover populations, or is that YOUR opinion regarding C&R?

Clarifying: they told us last night that C&R is here for a while until the stocks recover and that there's no choice, and that some lakes will now always be C&R and called "Trophy" lakes.

They don't mention the reality, that sport fishing C&R rarely recovers any stock or that allowing harvest on non-native species like Walleye which are out competing the native fish is a better solution. If they push this through, it's here to stay.

The reality is, if you're a C&R angler you see fish swim away and think they have a happy life and feel ethical about it, but you still kill many fish and potentially more compared to the retention angler who goes home after catching a limit. When you look at the numbers, how many C&R, how many keep, what their fishing goals are C&R and Retention with slot limits (sportfishing only), it comes out equal.

33/60% is not my opinion, that particular stat can be found here: https://wildlife.utah.gov/fishing/catchandreleasetips.php
There's enough studies done on this subject, google is your friend if you want more info on cryptic mortality. You'll find different numbers in different publications, but the that's the general consensus.

And tournament anglers are even worse with delayed mortality rates as high as 52%.

The PTSD thing, yes they really said fish get PTSD from C&R, but anyway, you can resolve that with a bonk (tongue in cheek - my comment).

[chuck0039]

Clarifying: they told us last night that C&R is here for a while until the stocks recover and that there's no choice, and that some lakes will now always be C&R and called "Trophy" lakes.

They don't mention the reality, that sport fishing C&R rarely recovers any stock or that allowing harvest on non-native species like Walleye which are out competing the native fish is a better solution. If they push this through, it's here to stay.

The reality is, if you're a C&R angler you see fish swim away and think they have a happy life and feel ethical about it, but you still kill many fish and potentially more compared to the retention angler who goes home after catching a limit. When you look at the numbers, how many C&R, how many keep, what their fishing goals are C&R and Retention with slot limits (sportfishing only), it comes out equal.

33/60% is not my opinion, that particular stat can be found here: https://wildlife.utah.gov/fishing/catchandreleasetips.php
There's enough studies done on this subject, google is your friend if you want more info on cryptic mortality. You'll find different numbers in different publications, but the that's the general consensus.

And tournament anglers are even worse with delayed mortality rates as high as 52%.

The PTSD thing, yes they really said fish get PTSD from C&R, but anyway, you can resolve that with a bonk (tongue in cheek - my comment).

When prohibition was around everything went underground. I fear the same will happen if they force C & R only on these lakes. People will just keep anyways, they will need to hire a lot more enforcement to ensure this does not happen.
It will be nice to see more enforcement but sad to see lakes on C & R instead of keeping the Class "B" & "C" tags and getting rid of the Class "A" tags.

[PerchBuster]

When prohibition was around everything went underground. I fear the same will happen if they force C & R only on these lakes. People will just keep anyways, they will need to hire a lot more enforcement to ensure this does not happen.
It will be nice to see more enforcement but sad to see lakes on C & R instead of keeping the Class "B" & "C" tags and getting rid of the Class "A" tags.

One of the reasons they are moving to more C&R and closing down lakes, in their logic anyways, is so they can eliminate more enforcement and surveillance altogether and not have to spend time or money doing future Lake surveys. The Provincial NDP are too busy spending billions on infrastructure and other “important things” to break a chunk off for proper fisheries management. In a world today of Governments catering to special interest groups for votes recreational fisherman are way down the list of importance and numbers. There’s not enough of us to really to move the needle on votes, yet they would have us believe there is 300 fisherman on every lake every weekend. They would rather spend nothing, close them down, eliminate retention, eliminate enforcement, sell the public tags in the handful of lakes they may or may not continue to stock with Walleye and sit back and collect the money while they play around with stocking Trout in single species Ponds and Pothole lakes. Having to manage Walleye, Pike, Whitefish, Burbs and Perch all at the same time in any given waterbody is way to taxing, ineffective and costly they believe so it’s just easier to say nobody can have any.

[Hillbilly 12]

There is a reason a person goes to saskatchewan to fish, because they actually manage fish properly. Alberta is far to intelligent to copy them, but alberta couldn't manage a tank of 5 gold fish without screwing it up. I'm afraid it's all going to be shut down, unless of course you have the right heritage will be the deciding factor for catch and release or keeping. I meen it was stupid with the size limit but now!!! Vote NDP though!!!:angry3:

[Walleyedude]

33/60% is not my opinion, that particular stat can be found here: https://wildlife.utah.gov/fishing/catchandreleasetips.php
There's enough studies done on this subject, google is your friend if you want more info on cryptic mortality. You'll find different numbers in different publications, but the that's the general consensus.

And tournament anglers are even worse with delayed mortality rates as high as 52%.

I don't want to get into an argument, because I agree, Google is your friend.

Your numbers are cherry picked to suit your bias. I could do a quick search and cherry pick the same to support my bias that C&R is a VERY effective method of managing populations and minimizing mortality. It depends a great deal on species, fishing method, and water temps primarily, but there are a lot of factors, not the least of which is proper handling of the fish. This much I know for certain, 100% of fish not released do not survive.

There are many studies done on mortality rates in tournaments, and 52% would be the at the VERY extreme end of the spectrum. It would be unprecedented for a walleye tournament in western Canada. If you want some interesting reading on the subject, search the recent work done by the University of Regina on the mortality and movement of fish caught and released during the Sask Walleye Trail tournaments. Mortality is in the low single digits at it's worst, and the movements post release are pretty amazing.

I would suggest using caution in your line of reasoning in support of catch and keep fishing. It's a slippery slope that leads to the end of sport fishing as we know it, which is what several European countries have done with the ban on C&R fishing.

[petecatch]

I don't want to get into an argument
...
DELETED
...
There are many studies done on mortality rates in tournaments, and 52% would be the at the VERY extreme end of the spectrum
DELETED
....


A tournament angler I guess? Apologies then for striking a nerve. When you think about it, keeping fish in a live well, hook wounds, culling, weigh-ins, warm temperatures, large number of highly effective anglers, 2-3 days pre-fishing, disqualified fish and long delays to release. Completely plausible most of those fish would swim away, that there would be zero floaters at weigh-in or on release, low cryptic mortality and the tournament would have a zero effect on fisheries... Somewhere between FIN survey and Commercial in terms of impact to the population is a more realistic view.

I'll respect your view to incidentally kill a number of fish if you respect mine to keep the occasional fillet.

[Walleyedude]

A tournament angler I guess? Apologies then for striking a nerve. When you think about it, keeping fish in a live well, hook wounds, culling, weigh-ins, warm temperatures, large number of highly effective anglers, 2-3 days pre-fishing, disqualified fish and long delays to release. Completely plausible most of those fish would swim away, that there would be zero floaters at weigh-in or on release, low cryptic mortality and the tournament would have a zero effect on fisheries... Somewhere between FIN survey and Commercial in terms of impact to the population is a more realistic view.

I'll respect your view to incidentally kill a number of fish if you respect mine to keep the occasional fillet.

You can guess at the impact of tournaments and be dramatic, or you can actually experience it yourself or educate yourself on the actual impacts. Up to you I guess.

I have zero issues with catch and keep where it's sustainable. I like a good fish fry a couple times a year myself.

[slough shark]

Has anyone who went to these meetings feel for a minute that the decision makers were listening at all? Does anyone showing up feel that their voices were heard and their opinions have any bearing in what the new regs will be? Is there any point trying to bring science, fishermen’s observations (and current studies) back into the conversation or do we simply start lobbying politicians to fire these clowns if they refuse to listen?

[slough shark]

One of the reasons they are moving to more C&R and closing down lakes, in their logic anyways, is so they can eliminate more enforcement and surveillance altogether and not have to spend time or money doing future Lake surveys. The Provincial NDP are too busy spending billions on infrastructure and other “important things” to break a chunk off for proper fisheries management. In a world today of Governments catering to special interest groups for votes recreational fisherman are way down the list of importance and numbers. There’s not enough of us to really to move the needle on votes, yet they would have us believe there is 300 fisherman on every lake every weekend. They would rather spend nothing, close them down, eliminate retention, eliminate enforcement, sell the public tags in the handful of lakes they may or may not continue to stock with Walleye and sit back and collect the money while they play around with stocking Trout in single species Ponds and Pothole lakes. Having to manage Walleye, Pike, Whitefish, Burbs and Perch all at the same time in any given waterbody is way to taxing, ineffective and costly they believe so it’s just easier to say nobody can have any.
The moment they want there’s all sorts of money for enforcement, how many parks staff were hired in the castle the moment they turned it into a park vs how many f&w officers were patrolling the area prior?

[michaelmicallef]

Sounds like we should subcontract our fisheries management to another
Province because this one one doesn't know how. Alberta could never manage it rite they only manage the users not the resources. Was told that by a friend in another Province that worked in f&W management. And he was 100% correct.

[RavYak]

Has anyone who went to these meetings feel for a minute that the decision makers were listening at all? Does anyone showing up feel that their voices were heard and their opinions have any bearing in what the new regs will be? Is there any point trying to bring science, fishermen’s observations (and current studies) back into the conversation or do we simply start lobbying politicians to fire these clowns if they refuse to listen?

I was at the Edmonton one tonight.

Overall the presentation was decent and had a number of good points and information. Where I disagree is with some of the decisions made with that data.

The question answer session of course got slightly heated at times and I wasn't really impressed with most of the answers. I asked a question myself and I honestly can't even remember the answer given as it had next to nothing to do with my question...

The main topics brought up by anglers were walleye overrunning our lakes decimating pike, perch and whitefish populations and the trend of closing more and more lakes to retention making it harder to keep fish and also focusing fishing pressure on the few remaining open lakes. Both very reasonable questions that unfortunately we didn't get great answers too...

I did have a good chat and brought up a number of points with one of the main biologists though.

[slough shark]

I was at the Edmonton one tonight.

Overall the presentation was decent and had a number of good points and information. Where I disagree is with some of the decisions made with that data.

The question answer session of course got slightly heated at times and I wasn't really impressed with most of the answers. I asked a question myself and I honestly can't even remember the answer given as it had next to nothing to do with my question...

The main topics brought up by anglers were walleye overrunning our lakes decimating pike, perch and whitefish populations and the trend of closing more and more lakes to retention making it harder to keep fish and also focusing fishing pressure on the few remaining open lakes. Both very reasonable questions that unfortunately we didn't get great answers too...

I did have a good chat and brought up a number of points with one of the main biologists though.

Perhaps time to start talking to the ucp and Alberta party (kinda already wrote off the ndp based on a number of decisions under their rule)about what their plans for f&w would be, their answers there could help determine a few things. It sounds like they’ve already made up their minds and this “consultation is nothing more than lip service and informing us of their decisions.

[petecatch]

Has anyone who went to these meetings feel for a minute that the decision makers were listening at all? Does anyone showing up feel that their voices were heard and their opinions have any bearing in what the new regs will be? Is there any point trying to bring science, fishermen’s observations (and current studies) back into the conversation or do we simply start lobbying politicians to fire these clowns if they refuse to listen?

No-one was listening with the exception of one who was open to listening but wasn't hearing (Stephen) a generally "nice guy" who I suspect is often walked over by his colleagues.

There really is little science happening. For example lets take Sylvan:
2017 Draft Fall Index Netting (FIN) for Pike - which they won't publish till after the new regs) shows 12 pike were caught in 14 nets over 2 days/nights and represents 0.1% of the pike population.

Based on the distribution of numbers versus size they concluded there was extremely low recruitment and the population was at very high risk to sustainability, they are going to a zero catch limit on Pike there next year.
No fish were caught under 63cm and they claim a small mature Pike population.

This is data that is onesies and twosies, i.e. 1 or 2 pike in the various sizes they look for and evenly spread over the sizes with a lot of gaps, total count 12. Scientifically, it proves nothing to anyone, there's not enough data to form any decision zero evidence, any scientist or even school student with laugh at the conclusion.

Also, doesn't match catch rates, but when's the last time you've had a angler survey when exiting a lake?

What are you catching at Sylvan? I catch about 60% under 63cms (50 to just under 63) a few in the 70-80 range and a few >20lb. And it's not too hard to catch Pike at Sylvan.

So how are they screwing up their science so bad and making these decisions?

FWIN = Fall Walleye Index Netting, note the "Walleye" in there. It's generally accepted as a way to monitor walleye populations and is scientifically calibrated for walleye, it works.

AB came up with FIN (Fall Index Netting) instead. It's based on the FWIN but measures other species. However there's zero evidence to suggest this approach works on anything but the Perch family due to time of year and distribution of population through the depths, so AB has decided to calibrate for other species. The calibration is based on angler surveys (which they rarely do as we know), they won't tell us how many angler surveys and lakes it was calibrated on either.

Now consider the data itself. We survey lakes every 5 years on average (for most lakes this is not enough). They can place the nets randomly and they do, always easiest to place at depths, nearest the boat launches, less work. Add in depth, temperature, time in the fall etc., and the survey is often invalid at wrt the guidelines but they use the data anyway.

Then they need some way to interpret this data, so they invented the Fish Sustainabilty Index. Again, no scientific evidence for the FSI, it's new and created by the same people who have done such an amazing job of managing our resources to date and no other jurisdiction uses it.

Everything is built on a house of cards, BUT, most don't pay attention, don't take the time to understand or don't care.

However people do see what's happening and understand the causes (non native species with zero harvest, environmental changes and just generally bad management).

So what to do? They have an Agenda, and will support that agenda with the House of Cards they've built, they don't want to be proven wrong. I don't believe it's just the NDP government, this stupidity has been going on for a while. If they attacked the real problem, they'd need to admit they got it wrong. We are the laughing stock of other bios in provinces for our fish management (literally), I can post some quotes. Even our own bios have (off the record) said there's no science to support the actions being taken.

We can't tackle this one on the science, it's gone too far now and they will weasel their way out of anything proven to be incorrect or streamroll, they've proven that in the meetings, if they realize the science is flawed, they just answer a different question to the one asked, and there are too few scientists in the angler community to form an effective voice.

The only way to effectively tackle this is to get organized... public angler revolt, press attention, social media and mass complaints about Alberta fisheries mismanagement to influencers and policy makers, force them to listen. At some level, a critical mass can make changes and the policy makers will realize that they really do need to consider what the public think. Afterall, they're supposed to be working for us. And the time for this is now, wait any longer and everything will be solidified and virtually impossible to change.

[RavYak]

It was Stephen Spencer that I chatted with after the fact and one of the points I brought up was pike and results from netting.

My argument was that most of the nets are likely set up for walleye as can be seen by the depth most of them are set at.

He said yes and no, that was originally the case early in the walleye management that they set up the nets in walleye type areas but they knew the data was no good for pike so now they spread them around a bit more and also have a factor that they apply to the netting data(which is why the population numbers can still seem quite high even though not a ton of pike caught in their data).

I then asked do they set the nets up right in/beside weed beds where the majority of pike live? Didn't really get a response to that question but I could see the not really look in his eyes.

This is something I have commented on multiple times before as I have found the netting results to underrate the pike fisheries on many lakes. I did mention this to him about South Buck Lake(which they are closing to pike retention) because I have never had trouble catching pike there nor struggled to find keeper size pike. He said their netting data was horrible this last go around which is why it is being shut down but I assume that is just because the nets weren't in the right places.

Another one of his comments was that they now try to place the walleye nets in different areas that aren't necessarily known to be the best spots on the lake. Although I see why they are trying this as an angler I also know 90% of the fish stick to about 10% of the water so if you want to get a good idea of population you need to be checking the primary fish holding habitat in order to make a proper analysis.

Overall you can tell they are trying to back management decisions up with science but the problem is that there isn't enough funding and manpower to do enough research and there are also some minor flaws in their processes and data analysis that they need to address.

[PerchBuster]

Exactly, and as explained to me, he recognizes that in many cases the damage is already done, lots of lakes need a reset, perhaps additional stocking, time to recover and rebalance. It takes time, measured in years, for that sequence of events to be fulfilled. No quick fix but at least they recognize they have to start somewhere to fix what’s wrong. None of it will be perfect, lots of variables effecting levels of success and no guarantees of it. There are significant flaws and variances in the data, science and thus perhaps decision making. Mother Nature still has to cooperate while we try to play God to fix what’s broken.

[RavYak]

Exactly, and as explained to me, he recognizes that in many cases the damage is already done, lots of lakes need a reset, perhaps additional stocking, time to recover and rebalance. It takes time, measured in years, for that sequence of events to be fulfilled. No quick fix but at least they recognize they have to start somewhere to fix what’s wrong. None of it will be perfect, lots of variables effecting levels of success and no guarantees of it. There are significant flaws and variances in the data, science and thus perhaps decision making. Mother Nature still has to cooperate while we try to play God to fix what’s broken.

I commented about using stocking to recover lakes faster. Walleye stocking isn't really effective for put and take type fishery like trout(due to a few different reasons) but we have seen stocking be extremely effective at recovering lakes and building a large population quickly. Examples being Wabamun, Lac La Biche, Pigeon, Pine Coulee etc. Instead of stocking 13 million fish in one lake like Wabamun try stocking 2 million in half a dozen lakes that are closed to retention for the recovery process right now. If it makes the recovery time 4 years instead of 10-15 then that is a huge advancement in keeping more of our waterbodies open.

He pretty much admitted that walleye don't do great in a number of our lakes which is one of the problems. Walleye have specific spawning requirements which many of our lakes aren't ideal for which makes for spotty recruitment. For example Wabamun historically has been stocked 3 times now and only this most recent one seems to have worked. That to me seems to be a red flag on focusing on walleye in all these lakes. Judging by the questions and comments from people regarding the degrading fishery state for pike, perch and whitefish and the responses I think they are going to start focusing a bit more on these species(and the obvious choice of lakes to do so would be the ones that the walleye don't do well in).

Time will tell what happens. I think they are playing on a slippery slope right now with their current practice of making more and more lakes C&R(and not doing enough netting on the remaining open lakes to realize that once they finally net them they will have to be recovered too...). The goal needs to be to keep as many lakes open as possible.

[wind drift]

No-one was listening with the exception of one who was open to listening but wasn't hearing (Stephen) a generally "nice guy" who I suspect is often walked over by his colleagues.

There really is little science happening. For example lets take Sylvan:
2017 Draft Fall Index Netting (FIN) for Pike - which they won't publish till after the new regs) shows 12 pike were caught in 14 nets over 2 days/nights and represents 0.1% of the pike population.

Based on the distribution of numbers versus size they concluded there was extremely low recruitment and the population was at very high risk to sustainability, they are going to a zero catch limit on Pike there next year.
No fish were caught under 63cm and they claim a small mature Pike population.

This is data that is onesies and twosies, i.e. 1 or 2 pike in the various sizes they look for and evenly spread over the sizes with a lot of gaps, total count 12. Scientifically, it proves nothing to anyone, there's not enough data to form any decision zero evidence, any scientist or even school student with laugh at the conclusion.

Also, doesn't match catch rates, but when's the last time you've had a angler survey when exiting a lake?

What are you catching at Sylvan? I catch about 60% under 63cms (50 to just under 63) a few in the 70-80 range and a few >20lb. And it's not too hard to catch Pike at Sylvan.

So how are they screwing up their science so bad and making these decisions?

FWIN = Fall Walleye Index Netting, note the "Walleye" in there. It's generally accepted as a way to monitor walleye populations and is scientifically calibrated for walleye, it works.

AB came up with FIN (Fall Index Netting) instead. It's based on the FWIN but measures other species. However there's zero evidence to suggest this approach works on anything but the Perch family due to time of year and distribution of population through the depths, so AB has decided to calibrate for other species. The calibration is based on angler surveys (which they rarely do as we know), they won't tell us how many angler surveys and lakes it was calibrated on either.

Now consider the data itself. We survey lakes every 5 years on average (for most lakes this is not enough). They can place the nets randomly and they do, always easiest to place at depths, nearest the boat launches, less work. Add in depth, temperature, time in the fall etc., and the survey is often invalid at wrt the guidelines but they use the data anyway.

Then they need some way to interpret this data, so they invented the Fish Sustainabilty Index. Again, no scientific evidence for the FSI, it's new and created by the same people who have done such an amazing job of managing our resources to date and no other jurisdiction uses it.

Everything is built on a house of cards, BUT, most don't pay attention, don't take the time to understand or don't care.

However people do see what's happening and understand the causes (non native species with zero harvest, environmental changes and just generally bad management).

So what to do? They have an Agenda, and will support that agenda with the House of Cards they've built, they don't want to be proven wrong. I don't believe it's just the NDP government, this stupidity has been going on for a while. If they attacked the real problem, they'd need to admit they got it wrong. We are the laughing stock of other bios in provinces for our fish management (literally), I can post some quotes. Even our own bios have (off the record) said there's no science to support the actions being taken.

We can't tackle this one on the science, it's gone too far now and they will weasel their way out of anything proven to be incorrect or streamroll, they've proven that in the meetings, if they realize the science is flawed, they just answer a different question to the one asked, and there are too few scientists in the angler community to form an effective voice.

The only way to effectively tackle this is to get organized... public angler revolt, press attention, social media and mass complaints about Alberta fisheries mismanagement to influencers and policy makers, force them to listen. At some level, a critical mass can make changes and the policy makers will realize that they really do need to consider what the public think. Afterall, they're supposed to be working for us. And the time for this is now, wait any longer and everything will be solidified and virtually impossible to change.

You’re right. Standardized monitoring and reporting is just crazy. Someone better tell the education system!

So, you suggest that an entire fisheries management department is either intentionally lying to us as part of some grand scheme, or is too stupid to know better? If either was true, why would they put the information out there for the world to see? What would the motive be? Is it a conspiracy led by PETA to put an end to fishing? Given that angling licence sales are going up steadily in Alberta, it would seem to be failing. Given the choice between: a) Alberta Fisheries managers have no clue what they’re doing, or b) some of us are opinionated, have a hard time accepting new information that doesn’t fit their views or have an axe to grind, I’ll go with the latter.

[SNAPFisher]

You’re right. Standardized monitoring and reporting is just crazy. Someone better tell the education system!

So, you suggest that an entire fisheries management department is either intentionally lying to us as part of some grand scheme, or is too stupid to know better? If either was true, why would they put the information out there for the world to see? What would the motive be? Is it a conspiracy led by PETA to put an end to fishing? Given that angling licence sales are going up steadily in Alberta, it would seem to be failing. Given the choice between: a) Alberta Fisheries managers have no clue what they’re doing, or b) some of us are opinionated, have a hard time accepting new information that doesn’t fit their views or have an axe to grind, I’ll go with the latter.

:happy0034:

[RavYak]

You’re right. Standardized monitoring and reporting is just crazy. Someone better tell the education system!

So, you suggest that an entire fisheries management department is either intentionally lying to us as part of some grand scheme, or is too stupid to know better? If either was true, why would they put the information out there for the world to see? What would the motive be? Is it a conspiracy led by PETA to put an end to fishing? Given that angling licence sales are going up steadily in Alberta, it would seem to be failing. Given the choice between: a) Alberta Fisheries managers have no clue what they’re doing, or b) some of us are opinionated, have a hard time accepting new information that doesn’t fit their views or have an axe to grind, I’ll go with the latter.

I would argue it is option c.

C) Fisheries is doing a half decent job although they have some unrealistic expectations which is leading them to be overly cautious. Lack of funding and resources makes it difficult for them to make proper decisions when trying to micro manage all these waterbodies like they are now and they rely too heavily on netting data to make their decisions which often doesn't happen regularly enough to make the proper decisions.

I could give a huge number of examples to back this up. Regarding high expectations all you have to do is go to one of these meetings. Listen to the part where they tell you our fishing is 3 times better then Montana's, 5 times better then Wisconsin. Listen to those of us that fish other areas and know our fish population numbers are high here, rather then needing recovery as fisheries keeps telling us. They have unrealistic expectations that every walleye lake needs to be a Pigeon etc where it is easy to catch 50+ fish in a day. Most people in AB would be more then happy with regs that would allow for 10 fish in a day if they could keep 1 or 2 of them. You go to these meetings and read posts on here and in the news etc and angler frustrations across AB are super easy to understand. It isn't that we have bad fishing. It is the opposite, it is that we have good fishing but are barely allowed to keep anything anymore while our regs still keep moving towards more and more C&R and tags. Just a personal example but I have now won a North America wide kayak fishing competition based on numbers of fish not once but now two years in a row... AB fishing is far from in a bad state right now...

Some examples of poor management due to lack of data are Wabamun where they still refuse to believe/accept that the pike population has declined and which they still blame fisherman C&R mortality for lack of bigger fish. The reason for their attitude is that they haven't netted the lake since 2015 at which point their data already showed a slight decline(but within statistical error), once they net it again I almost guarantee they will go oops guess the anglers were right... Another example being Cross Lake which was closed due to either summer or winter kill worries(can't remember which one) but obviously has never been look at since because if it had been then the regs would have been changed back as the fish populations are fine...

I could go on and on but there is no point. If anyone wants to make informed decisions on our fisheries process and management read the information they give you. Read the old netting reports and tests available on google. Read the new netting data results and project outlines etc that they have been sharing recently. Find the discrepancies, they are there and often obvious. Then if you also have enough fishing experience on a number of these lakes you will also know how the netting data often has to be taken with a grain of salt(especially regarding pike).

Fisheries is trying but they are doing so in a way analogous to a car manufacturer trying to design a car by only taking into account test track results and not being happy until it performs like a Ferrari. Sure they may eventually end up with amazing results but they aren't necessary and they aren't going to provide a lot of the things many fishermen want.

[Walleyedude]

Most people in AB would be more then happy with regs that would allow for 10 fish in a day if they could keep 1 or 2 of them.

I think you're off base on this assertion.

People want a quality fishery, and I think most anglers understand that without C&R or very strict retention rules and enforcement, there won't be a quality fishery in AB, southern AB for sure.

That means a range of sizes and the chance at "trophy" class fish, in more species than just walleye, but it also means they want numbers. I agree that numbers are currently skewed on some lakes and walleye are overabundant, but 8-10 fish in an 8-10 hr day is NOT most people's idea of quality fishing. It certainly isn't going to keep beginners or novice anglers interested and invested and probably doesn't do much for the average angler either. You've got to be pretty hardcore to keep going at a 1 fish per hour catch rate.

[petecatch]

Walleye stocking isn't really effective for put and take type fishery like trout(due to a few different reasons) but we have seen stocking be extremely effective at recovering lakes and building a large population quickly.

Exactly why Saskatchewan stock 5% walleye in the put and take walleye fisheries every year.

If it's a put and take fishery, then you stock, works for walleye too that's why they do it.

Stocking species in a lake where they are not native and allow harvest, then you restock. Unless of course you live in AB, in which case they expect their non-native species they introduce to be self sustaining. They need to wise up.

In 2016, SK stocked 10X more fish than AB and 9.9 million were walleye.

And their calibration numbers are off, way off for Pike on the FIN. Caught an undersized fish at Sylvan the other day, if you believe their 2017 FIN, there aren't any hence the conclusion they came to "zero recruitment". Must have caught a Ghost fish.

Good decisions aren't based on poor science, and incorrect netting.