Walleye slot size

[wildbill]

Do you think there should be a slot size opposed to fish over 50 cm, 55cm ect. that target the big spawners?

[Kurt505]

I think the whole province should be opened up with a slot size. If every lake was open then there wouldn't be any lakes being over pressured and killed off. If a lake starts to have a low population the fishermen will naturally choose a different lake.

[bobalong]

I think the whole province should be opened up with a slot size. If every lake was open then there wouldn't be any lakes being over pressured and killed off. If a lake starts to have a low population the fishermen will naturally choose a different lake.

The lakes were being over pressured 20+ years ago when the whole province was open and the angler population was a lot less than now. That pressure and diminished fish populations is what initiated many of the lake closures.

You now have a larger population so how do you think opening all the lakes now would help?

[58thecat]

Do you think there should be a slot size opposed to fish over 50 cm, 55cm ect. that target the big spawners?

Yup.

[58thecat]

The lakes were being over pressured 20+ years ago when the whole province was open and the angler population was a lot less than now. That pressure and diminished fish populations is what initiated many of the lake closures.

You now have a larger population so how do you think opening all the lakes now would help?

Open lakes that can sustain a slot size, one fish only.
Tag system in place as is right now but a slot size.
There are ways to do this but at the end of the day we as anglers have to govern our actions, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.

[walleyechaser]

Do you think there should be a slot size opposed to fish over 50 cm, 55cm ect. that target the big spawners?The reason we don't have a slot size is that alberta walleye grow slower than anywhere else. The theory is if someone takes a 55cm walleye it has atleast spawned once. So a fish is replacing it.

Imo they should stock bait fish to get the walleye growing faster and then introduce a slot size. Chin and ridge come to mind. More bait fish would help the pike and walleye considerably

Places like lesser slave lake could handle a slot size already.

Slot size is great for bigger fish, but with our slow growing walleye it would decimate populations fast. If they were stocking millions of walleye every year it would be no issue either

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Kurt505]

The lakes were being over pressured 20+ years ago when the whole province was open and the angler population was a lot less than now. That pressure and diminished fish populations is what initiated many of the lake closures.

You now have a larger population so how do you think opening all the lakes now would help?

Those lakes had a retention number of 10 fish per angler then it was reduced to 5 before the closure. The population hasn't doubled since then, let alone gone up 5x or 10x. The way they have it set up right now they are systematically making sure all lakes get fished out one by one.

Go to any lake that allows retention of walleye and look at the number of anglers and then look at the lakes that have zero retention and tell me they aren't creating copious amounts of angling pressure on the very few lakes that are still open to retention. If every lake was open to a one fish slot limit this pressure would be spread across the province. If populations in a lake get low and angling isn't as good then you can try a different lake and that's what would happen. Lakes would keep a healthy population instead of over population of one species. You would see perch and pike numbers go back to normal levels as well.


25 years ago a family of 4 could go to a lake for the weekend and bring home 80 walleye (2 day limit of 10), if they change the regs to one slot size fish and one day limit retention that same family could bring home 4. Do you see the difference? It's 76 fish for one family over one weekend.

[walleyechaser]

Those lakes had a retention number of 10 fish per angler then it was reduced to 5 before the closure. The population hasn't doubled since then, let alone gone up 5x or 10x. The way they have it set up right now they are systematically making sure all lakes get fished out one by one.

Go to any lake that allows retention of walleye and look at the number of anglers and then look at the lakes that have zero retention and tell me they aren't creating copious amounts of angling pressure on the very few lakes that are still open to retention. If every lake was open to a one fish slot limit this pressure would be spread across the province. If populations in a lake get low and angling isn't as good then you can try a different lake and that's what would happen. Lakes would keep a healthy population instead of over population of one species. You would see perch and pike numbers go back to normal levels as well.


25 years ago a family of 4 could go to a lake for the weekend and bring home 80 walleye (2 day limit of 10), if they change the regs to one slot size fish and one day limit retention that same family could bring home 4. Do you see the difference? It's 76 fish for one family over one weekend.Comparing today to 25 years ago is not wise. Considerably more angler pressure now. Technology has changed immensely. Climate has changed a lot. There are far too many variables to compare

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[7magtime]

Those lakes had a retention number of 10 fish per angler then it was reduced to 5 before the closure. The population hasn't doubled since then, let alone gone up 5x or 10x. The way they have it set up right now they are systematically making sure all lakes get fished out one by one.

Go to any lake that allows retention of walleye and look at the number of anglers and then look at the lakes that have zero retention and tell me they aren't creating copious amounts of angling pressure on the very few lakes that are still open to retention. If every lake was open to a one fish slot limit this pressure would be spread across the province. If populations in a lake get low and angling isn't as good then you can try a different lake and that's what would happen. Lakes would keep a healthy population instead of over population of one species. You would see perch and pike numbers go back to normal levels as well.

25 years ago a family of 4 could go to a lake for the weekend and bring home 80 walleye (2 day limit of 10), if they change the regs to one slot size fish and one day limit retention that same family could bring home 4. Do you see the difference? It's 76 fish for one family over one weekend.

Well said Kurt.

[Kurt505]

Comparing today to 25 years ago is not wise. Considerably more angler pressure now. Technology has changed immensely. Climate has changed a lot. There are far too many variables to compare

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

I remember going to the local lake when I was young and literally bringing home pales full of fish in one day. Even without electronics the fishing holes were always in the same place!

And more angling pressure? There sure is, especially on the very few lakes that allow retention! How long you figure until those lakes get fished out??? ESRD are backwards!!!

[walleyechaser]

I doubt the walleye lakes will get fished out. With no commercial pressure + a large size limit. It's not too often the average Joe is pulling out keep size walleye. Poaching is a issue though

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Kurt505]

I doubt the walleye lakes will get fished out. With no commercial pressure + a large size limit. It's not too often the average Joe is pulling out keep size walleye. Poaching is a issue though

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Well then why not open them all up?????

[bobalong]

Those lakes had a retention number of 10 fish per angler then it was reduced to 5 before the closure. The population hasn't doubled since then, let alone gone up 5x or 10x. The way they have it set up right now they are systematically making sure all lakes get fished out one by one.

Go to any lake that allows retention of walleye and look at the number of anglers and then look at the lakes that have zero retention and tell me they aren't creating copious amounts of angling pressure on the very few lakes that are still open to retention. If every lake was open to a one fish slot limit this pressure would be spread across the province. If populations in a lake get low and angling isn't as good then you can try a different lake and that's what would happen. Lakes would keep a healthy population instead of over population of one species. You would see perch and pike numbers go back to normal levels as well.


25 years ago a family of 4 could go to a lake for the weekend and bring home 80 walleye (2 day limit of 10), if they change the regs to one slot size fish and one day limit retention that same family could bring home 4. Do you see the difference? It's 76 fish for one family over one weekend.

The problem is that a lot of anglers don't spread out nice and evenly across all the lakes. Withing 1-2 hours of the major cities is where a lot of people are going to fish, and I am guessing they would decimate populations in 1 year.

Some may move out to other lakes, but many lakes do not have accommodations for huge trailers and bigger boats. Once you have an open limit, poaching also becomes a bigger problem. It would be nice if they could open all the lakes but I just don't believe that without a huge stocking effort the lakes would survive for long.

[Kurt505]

The problem is that a lot of anglers don't spread out nice and evenly across all the lakes. Withing 1-2 hours of the major cities is where a lot of people are going to fish, and I am guessing they would decimate populations in 1 year.

Some may move out to other lakes, but many lakes do not have accommodations for huge trailers and bigger boats. Once you have an open limit, poaching also becomes a bigger problem. It would be nice if they could open all the lakes but I just don't believe that without a huge stocking effort the lakes would survive for long.

No, I totally disagree. Right now those guys you are saying will totally decimate the lakes close by are ALL going to just one of very few lakes to do their fishing. I'm sure they will still be willing to travel to other lakes. I know I, and many others I've spoken to would. If all lakes were open I'm sure guys would opt for a lake that had less fishing pressure even if it meant an extra 1/2 hour or even an hour extra drive.

[bobalong]

No, I totally disagree. Right now those guys you are saying will totally decimate the lakes close by are ALL going to just one of very few lakes to do their fishing. I'm sure they will still be willing to travel to other lakes. I know I, and many others I've spoken to would. If all lakes were open I'm sure guys would opt for a lake that had less fishing pressure even if it meant an extra 1/2 hour or even an hour extra drive.

Then we shall have to agree to disagree, an open limit (even for 1) in this province would be a lake killer. I could be off on my numbers but the problem is we are probably only talking about maybe 30-40 lakes total that are actually accessible and have enough walleye over 15 inches to even bother opening.

250,000 licensed anglers not counting seniors,kids under 16, and First Nations that is a lot of anglers for the amount of lakes.

[Kurt505]

Then we shall have to agree to disagree, an open limit (even for 1) in this province would be a lake killer. I could be off on my numbers but the problem is we are probably only talking about maybe 30-40 lakes total that are actually accessible and have enough walleye over 15 inches to even bother opening.

250,000 licensed anglers not counting seniors,kids under 16, and First Nations that is a lot of anglers for the amount of lakes.

Well right now there's about 4 lakes taking on the responsibility, I'm willing to bet opening up 10x the amount will greatly relieve the fishing pressure those 4 lakes are under and help the lakes overpopulated with walleye get healthy again.

[wildbill]

Okay so my personal observation at a reservoir in southern alberta this year we fished numerous times this year, lots of walleye, very few anglers, not one legal, I know this body of water must have lots of legals, the wife likes to go shore fishing there. I can't ever remember catching a legal there. We like walleye. Fast foreward some weeks, bin going fly fishin for eyes, caught two on separate occasions that were well over legal, and kept them both, they were the two biggest eyes I've ever caught, totally legal, but now I'm feeling remorse, that I should have tossed them back, seems like lots of smaller ones around. On one hand I feel bad on the other hand not so much so, our regs, encourage keeping the big spawners. I think they should implement slots sizes.

[ghostguy6]

Personally I would like to see it more like Saskatchewan regs, lets say total of 3 but only one over a certain size.

[FlyTheory]

In the regulations book (2018) there is are 2 articles by Dr. Sullivan about this exact topic. I suggest everyone reads it! They are both extremely relevant.

https://mywildalberta.ca/fishing/regulations/documents/2018-AlbertaGuideSportfishingRegulations-Apr17-2018.pdf

Page 95-99.

[Kurt505]

In the regulations book (2018) there is are 2 articles by Dr. Sullivan about this exact topic. I suggest everyone reads it! They are both extremely relevant.

https://mywildalberta.ca/fishing/regulations/documents/2018-AlbertaGuideSportfishingRegulations-Apr17-2018.pdf

Page 95-99.

With the highest number of licenses in the past 30 years you'd think they could spend a little money on stocking pike, perch, and walleye! The amount of money they waste on pretend studies could fill our lakes with fish.

[huntsfurfish]

:party0051::wave:

[pikergolf]

In the regulations book (2018) there is are 2 articles by Dr. Sullivan about this exact topic. I suggest everyone reads it! They are both extremely relevant.

https://mywildalberta.ca/fishing/regulations/documents/2018-AlbertaGuideSportfishingRegulations-Apr17-2018.pdf

Page 95-99.

Pfffft, what do biologists know. Us arm chair guys are way smarter.

[smitty9]

I think the whole province should be opened up with a slot size. If every lake was open then there wouldn't be any lakes being over pressured and killed off. If a lake starts to have a low population the fishermen will naturally choose a different lake.

I would like something like this as well. However, we would need the bios to be completely on top of this with FIN results and sustainability indexes. For example, my concern, switching a lake like Pigeon from tags to a slot size may still result in many walleye being removed from the lake; there is enormous angling pressure, even a 1 walleye limit per angler - but unlimited outings, no tags - may result in a collapse of the walleye population.

The lakes were being over pressured 20+ years ago when the whole province was open and the angler population was a lot less than now. That pressure and diminished fish populations is what initiated many of the lake closures.

You now have a larger population so how do you think opening all the lakes now would help?

Angler population peaked in 1986 ~330,000 angling licenses sold, 1995 ~220,000, 2005~180,000 , 2010~223,000, 2017~294,000. So it would appear that 20+ years ago was the low. But, there were more anglers in the 80's.

The reason we don't have a slot size is that alberta walleye grow slower than anywhere else. The theory is if someone takes a 55cm walleye it has atleast spawned once. So a fish is replacing it.

Imo they should stock bait fish to get the walleye growing faster and then introduce a slot size. Chin and ridge come to mind. More bait fish would help the pike and walleye considerably

Places like lesser slave lake could handle a slot size already.

I was told by bios and F&W that when slot sizes were experimented with in the 90's, like Spencer Lake, the reason the slot sizes weren't kept was low compliance by anglers.

AEP doesn't stock baitfish. I think that's mostly a non-starter. What AEP has to do is do their jobs properly in monitoring lakes and approaching these lakes more for their harvest potential. C&R is not a religion (and some bios do think that, imho), it is a management tool.

Those lakes had a retention number of 10 fish per angler then it was reduced to 5 before the closure. The population hasn't doubled since then, let alone gone up 5x or 10x. The way they have it set up right now they are systematically making sure all lakes get fished out one by one.

Go to any lake that allows retention of walleye and look at the number of anglers and then look at the lakes that have zero retention and tell me they aren't creating copious amounts of angling pressure on the very few lakes that are still open to retention. If every lake was open to a one fish slot limit this pressure would be spread across the province. If populations in a lake get low and angling isn't as good then you can try a different lake and that's what would happen. Lakes would keep a healthy population instead of over population of one species. You would see perch and pike numbers go back to normal levels as well.

25 years ago a family of 4 could go to a lake for the weekend and bring home 80 walleye (2 day limit of 10), if they change the regs to one slot size fish and one day limit retention that same family could bring home 4. Do you see the difference? It's 76 fish for one family over one weekend.

This would help simplify the regs for sure, but simplifying the regs isn't the highest priority for the AEP. For sure the math works, but that's not the point. Everyone agrees the limits were FAR too liberal back then.

Haven't fished walleye lakes recently, so I don't have any observations of my own. However, common sense would tell me that retention lakes would see increased pressure, followed by tag lakes, followed by C&R lakes. But that's pretty simplistic and not accounting for catchability, proximity, other recreational activities, etc. I know for sure the price of gas is factoring in for some of my walleye friends in terms of how far they drive for day trips. A little bit of why Pigeon and Wabamun see alot of pressure. Convenience of location.

I am in favour for all the retention that lakes can sustain. In my opinion, the AEP, formerly, SRD, formerly ... etc has had a hit and miss track record. Walleye fishing is much better in many lakes now than it used to be in the 90's, but as the recent meetings in Lac La Biche over the past winter highlight, it's really time for the AEP to priortize sustainable harvest strategies for many of these lakes that have seen a successful comeback of walleye populations.

And of course, times have changed. Technology, techniques, boats, angler knowledge, the availability of info and know-ho on the internet, has made everyone a better angler. That is a daunting task for bios.

Anyways, things change and evolve. Back in the 90's the good ol boys hated and rejected slot sizes.

But I think the angling public would embrace them more now, especially if it means getting to keep a shore lunch.

[smitty9]

In the regulations book (2018) there is are 2 articles by Dr. Sullivan about this exact topic. I suggest everyone reads it! They are both extremely relevant.

https://mywildalberta.ca/fishing/regulations/documents/2018-AlbertaGuideSportfishingRegulations-Apr17-2018.pdf

Page 95-99.

I talked about those 2 articles with 2 very knowledgeable friends, one of which was a bio, and another that was directly involved with fisheries management. I'll just say this; they - and I - disagree with some of the conclusions reached by Dr. Sullivan.

[SNAPFisher]

Pfffft, what do biologists know. Us arm chair guys are way smarter.



X2. Best contribution / comment to this thread :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[deschambault]

Actually I find this forum kind of interesting. I continue to do a Saskatchewan trip every year to catch way less and smaller walleye but I get to eat a fish. It is apparent that certain F&W managers believe there are no fish in southern reservoirs. I still have no idea how you can manage a population believing there is nothing between 3 fish per day and total catch and release. Why not be innovative and email license holders 1 tag per month to keep a fish? Freezer fish aren't any good but a fresh shore lunch is one of the joys of summer.

[Kurt505]

Actually I find this forum kind of interesting. I continue to do a Saskatchewan trip every year to catch way less and smaller walleye but I get to eat a fish. It is apparent that certain F&W managers believe there are no fish in southern reservoirs. I still have no idea how you can manage a population believing there is nothing between 3 fish per day and total catch and release. Why not be innovative and email license holders 1 tag per month to keep a fish? Freezer fish aren't any good but a fresh shore lunch is one of the joys of summer.

Honestly, I get tired of catching fish after fish after fish and not being allowed to keep any.

It's like being single and going to the bar, do you go to the strip club because you know you'll be able to at least see some bees, or do you go to the dance club where you might be able to play with them?

[rem338win]

The lakes were being over pressured 20+ years ago when the whole province was open and the angler population was a lot less than now. That pressure and diminished fish populations is what initiated many of the lake closures.

You now have a larger population so how do you think opening all the lakes now would help?

The issue was lack of oversight and gross limits.

Slot sizes and restricted limits. It is sustainable if its managed well and we actually get enforcement.

[mlee]

Honestly, I get tired of catching fish after fish after fish and not being allowed to keep any.

It's like being single and going to the bar, do you go to the strip club because you know you'll be able to at least see some bees, or do you go to the dance club where you might be able to play with them?

That about sums it up. If I'm out fishing for the day....I sure as hell enjoy frying up a fish. I never have and probably never will harvest more fish then what I'm going to eat in a meal that day no matter what the limit is. I've got no interest in packing home a dozen fish to clean wrap and freeze....I just want lunch or supper to end a good day fishing.
I know not everyone has that mentality but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of passionate fishermen are of a similar mindset.

[EZM]

The answer depends on what each management strategy is for that specific watershed.

Applying any "blanket province wide rule" isn't going to yield an intelligent solution IMO.

Fishing pressure has increased. That's probably the only one thing we might all agree on. The walleye stocking program has, in some lakes, led to a massive explosion of walleye in lakes to the point these poor buggers are starving themselves (and other fish like Pike) to death.

[smitty9]

That about sums it up. If I'm out fishing for the day....I sure as hell enjoy frying up a fish. I never have and probably never will harvest more fish then what I'm going to eat in a meal that day no matter what the limit is. I've got no interest in packing home a dozen fish to clean wrap and freeze....I just want lunch or supper to end a good day fishing.
I know not everyone has that mentality but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of passionate fishermen are of a similar mindset.

I'm with you here. And I hope you are right. But, we know at least some people don't share that view. To use a stereotype, I call them the good ol boys club. These are the fellas that use to catch 10 walleye, take them home, freeze them, and go out the next day (some the same day!!) and catch 10 more. Possession limits use to differ (not that they were heeded too much anyways).

Angling culture has changed in Alberta, but not a whole lot. If you don't believe me, then I'd say, recall the fiasco regarding the stocking Tiger trout at Black Nugget. No limit on them before being classified as gamefish, and many people couldn't help themselves. Five gallon pails were filled up with freshly stocked trout...

Alberta should revive and promote its Fishing Education program!

[58thecat]

Well then why not open them all up?????

Because people can't help themselves and self govern thier own actions even if it is legal.....government say I can keep six....so they do even though they fished 14 hrs to get thier limit by the jeepers they will take thier allotted six.....:snapoutofit:
Results in government making a one or two year mistake and wham lake deprived of fish again so back to lock down.....two wrongs don t make a right.

[Byron]

The other issue is they have found a way to generate revenue with the walleye draws and the tags. Opening up a slot size on lakes would result in a lot of lost revenue and unfortunately I see this playing a large part in any future ability to harvest fish. With all the closures on Pike in central Alberta I can only imagine it'll be a matter of time before they go the way of the tag as well :(

[Walleyedude]

That about sums it up. If I'm out fishing for the day....I sure as hell enjoy frying up a fish. I never have and probably never will harvest more fish then what I'm going to eat in a meal that day no matter what the limit is. I've got no interest in packing home a dozen fish to clean wrap and freeze....I just want lunch or supper to end a good day fishing.
I know not everyone has that mentality but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of passionate fishermen are of a similar mindset.

IF, and that's a HUGE IF, most fishermen thought this way, it MIGHT work, with very careful management.

The problem is, in my experience, it simply doesn't work that way. There are only a small minority of people like yourself in the middle when it comes to this issue. Those people would have an impact, but it would potentially be manageable and sustainable on many lakes.

There are far too many that will push to the very limits of what's legal (and beyond) when it comes to retention, and they will do it constantly until there's nothing left.

The other end of the spectrum is the passionate fisherman who's really only there for the sport of it, and is a C&R fisherman, even when retention is allowed. I fall into that category 99% of the time. In my circle of fishing friends and acquaintances, most would fall into this category as well.

[Kurt505]

Because people can't help themselves and self govern thier own actions even if it is legal.....government say I can keep six....so they do even though they fished 14 hrs to get thier limit by the jeepers they will take thier allotted six.....:snapoutofit:
Results in government making a one or two year mistake and wham lake deprived of fish again so back to lock down.....two wrongs don t make a right.

Nobody said keep six, it's one only.

If a guy is going to poach it doesn't matter if the lake is open or not imo.

[Kurt505]

There are far too many that will push to the very limits of what's legal (and beyond) when it comes to retention, and they will do it constantly until there's nothing left.

The other end of the spectrum is the passionate fisherman who's really only there for the sport of it, and is a C&R fisherman, even when retention is allowed. I fall into that category 99% of the time. In my circle of fishing friends and acquaintances, most would fall into this category as well.


You are making huge assumptions, and I mean huge. Do you figure you and your buddies are an elite few? Do you figure most guys on this forum are poachers?

I'd like to give slbertans as a whole way more credit than what you do, and like I said, those guys that will poach are poaching right now.


The sky won't fall if they open up retention again, trust me.

[walleyechaser]

I would say its extremely rare to do a days fishing in southern Alberta without catching a keeper. 55cm really isn't that big. (Just jigging minnows is all I see guys doing in ridge and chin, maybe if they used methods for larger fish they would be able to keep a fish where regs allow)

The biggest issue is all the old timers keeping any legal fish they catch. A 8lb walleye should be put back. Just because one can keep it doesn't mean we should. That is one of the biggest reasons alberta fisheries aren't the best. Everyone wants to keep their limit. So many times you show a picture and the first 10 responses are why did you let it go, I would have kept ect.

Kurt we do not have the enforcement or the stocking programs or the length of growing season to sustain a open fishery

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[pikergolf]

I really like the tag system. Exact harvests can be controlled. Costs are to high but the principal is sound.

[Kurt505]

I would say its extremely rare to do a days fishing in southern Alberta without catching a keeper. 55cm really isn't that big. (Just jigging minnows is all I see guys doing in ridge and chin, maybe if they used methods for larger fish they would be able to keep a fish where regs allow)

The biggest issue is all the old timers keeping any legal fish they catch. A 8lb walleye should be put back. Just because one can keep it doesn't mean we should. That is one of the biggest reasons alberta fisheries aren't the best. Everyone wants to keep their limit. So many times you show a picture and the first 10 responses are why did you let it go, I would have kept ect.

Kurt we do not have the enforcement or the stocking programs or the length of growing season to sustain a open fishery

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Enforcement doesn't change so it doesn't play a role in this discussion. How can northern lakes keep a sustainable level of fish while allowing retention with the length of our growing seasons yet the southern lakes can't? I think you've been brain washed into believing that's true.

A slot size limit would stop the old timers from keeping the 8lb walleye. What happens when you close 95% of the lakes is you force the guys who want to catch and keep onto 5% of the lakes. Care to guess what will happen to those 5%? I'll give you a hint, tags province wide so the government get their cash. Do you think the bio's aren't aware of this? Lol! Of course they are, its job security.

If the province was opened up for retention those old timers could try and fish out 100% of the lakes, and with the price of gas and only being allowed 1 walleye of a slot size per trip, they'd never have the time or money to do it!

[walleyechaser]

Enforcement doesn't change so it doesn't play a role in this discussion. How can northern lakes keep a sustainable level of fish while allowing retention with the length of our growing seasons yet the southern lakes can't? I think you've been brain washed into believing that's true.

A slot size limit would stop the old timers from keeping the 8lb walleye. What happens when you close 95% of the lakes is you force the guys who want to catch and keep onto 5% of the lakes. Care to guess what will happen to those 5%? I'll give you a hint, tags province wide so the government get their cash. Do you think the bio's aren't aware of this? Lol! Of course they are, its job security.

If the province was opened up for retention those old timers could try and fish out 100% of the lakes, and with the price of gas and only being allowed 1 walleye of a slot size per trip, they'd never have the time or money to do it!Angler pressure per km of fishable water. Go to lesser slave. Less people fishing than on ridge, st mary's, chin ect per km of water.

Another major concern is how low they let the reservoirs in southern Alberta get. Last winter ridge was the lowest I have seen it in years. Cant sustain healthy fish populations in a few small deep pools



Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[walleyechaser]

I'm not here to fight with you. We all know fish management in Alberta needs to change. I'm speaking from my experience fishing for Walleye.

Out of all the walleye reservoirs around I would say only 1 maybe 2 is excellent. The rest need a lot of help

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Walleyedude]

You are making huge assumptions, and I mean huge. Do you figure you and your buddies are an elite few? Do you figure most guys on this forum are poachers?

I'd like to give slbertans as a whole way more credit than what you do, and like I said, those guys that will poach are poaching right now.

The sky won't fall if they open up retention again, trust me.

DO NOT put words in my mouth or try to paint me with your strawman arguments.

This type of post is the EXACT reason why I did not respond to you in any way, and why I will not discuss this issue with you now, or in the future.

P. S. I don't trust you...

[1899b]

Because people can't help themselves and self govern thier own actions even if it is legal.....government say I can keep six....so they do even though they fished 14 hrs to get thier limit by the jeepers they will take thier allotted six.....:snapoutofit:
Results in government making a one or two year mistake and wham lake deprived of fish again so back to lock down.....two wrongs don t make a right.

Yup. i find it ironic that seniors 65 and up get off with not haveing to pay for a license and give back to the resource. Im 46. It was my Dad's generation and his dads generation that decimated the fishery in Alberta in my opinion. 10 pike 5 walleye and 30 perch for daily limits. Those generations made darn sure they filled the boat with enough butts in the seats to capitalize on these limits. I grew up with a summer home on Moose lake outside of Bonnville as a kid and back then it was on like donkey kong with everyone that fished that lake.

[kouleerunner]

The other issue is they have found a way to generate revenue with the walleye draws and the tags. Opening up a slot size on lakes would result in a lot of lost revenue and unfortunately I see this playing a large part in any future ability to harvest fish. With all the closures on Pike in central Alberta I can only imagine it'll be a matter of time before they go the way of the tag as well :(

I am pretty sure that this is no profitable. Although it is revenue, it is a pittance to the cost of running the system.

Im with Pikergolf, I dont mind the tag system at all. The down side it is expensive to run.

Full disclosure, I rarely if ever keep walleye even though I legally can retain, and enjoy the closed fisheries, as they typically have higher populations, and healthier fish. I have never been concerned about someone keeping A walleye. Its those who keep 10, 15, 20 that really concern me!

I fundamentally disagree with the FIN system in the southern reservoirs, we finally got the biologists to agree that they do not understand them, the FIN index does not predict the health of the fishery, and the fluctuations create errors. Poaching is also a huge issue, with way to many fish taken out of closed fisheries, without penalty. I also disagree with the data interpretation, it seems biased at best! Closing lakes without any information also confirms this point (I.E. CHIN)

I like the system that some states have. Its more for salmon, but could be adopted for Walleye. If you want to retain a few walleye, you purchase a walleye stamp on your fishing license. this will give you a set number of walleye tags, which can be used anywhere in the province, or even in set lakes would work. Harvest reports to be filled out before the end of the season. This will create accurate analytics for walleye fishing, give the ability to retain a few fish, and have all revenue to to walleye stocking/recruitment programs/ education. Costs would be minimal, but we as walleye champions would be able to retain a few walleye (we know that some just will not make it!), or purchase the stamp and not keep any, knowing that the money will go to better fisheries in the future. This would also move retention pressure away from current open lakes.

The hard part about this entire plan is to convince biologists that stocking any walleye again is a good plan. The focus in Alberta seems to be trout, we as Fish and Game associations, Alberta Conservation Association, and concerned stakeholders need to step up and work hard to get something going. I know the Alberta Fish and Game Association is working on getting something done.

http://letsgooutdoors.ca/blogs/item/247-a-fishing-future-for-alberta

My point here is that the data the biologists are using is not good data. The interpertation of the data is inaccurate in some cases, and the decisions made seem to be with an agenda in mind, that is to close all walleye retention lakes. I have no issue with going to a tag system, but I would like to see it implemented better, using a slot system. It has been proven the large walleye are much better breeders, and not every single fish in the slot will be harvested!

[Kurt505]

DO NOT put words in my mouth or try to paint me with your strawman arguments.

This type of post is the EXACT reason why I did not respond to you in any way, and why I will not discuss this issue with you now, or in the future.

P. S. I don't trust you...

Bahahaha..... you don't trust me? Is that supposed to hurt my feelings?

I put no words in your mouth, go back and read your post for crying out loud! It sounds like chicken Little.


Here I'll quote directly from your post:



The problem is, in my experience, it simply doesn't work that way. There are only a small minority of people like yourself in the middle when it comes to this issue. Those people would have an impact, but it would potentially be manageable and sustainable on many lakes.

There are far too many that will push to the very limits of what's legal (and beyond) when it comes to retention, and they will do it constantly until there's nothing left.

The other end of the spectrum is the passionate fisherman who's really only there for the sport of it, and is a C&R fisherman, even when retention is allowed. I fall into that category 99% of the time. In my circle of fishing friends and acquaintances, most would fall into this category as well.


Y'all tell me, what words did I put in your mouth? Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by a small minority???

Talk about strawman argument!

[PerchBuster]

They should reintroduce an annual Walleye stocking program to keep existing lakes topped up every year and to help recruitment levels and introduce a slot size limit. Don’t mass stock lakes with multi-millions of Walleye that overrun the waterbody, just enough to create a solid sustainable fishery and make annual adjustments to it. Works everywhere else in the world. I don’t totally buy the whole argument that our Walleye grow so much slower (maybe, maybe not, still no reason a proper slot cant be introduced) than everywhere else and we have fewer lakes than everywhere else blah blah blah. If we have fewer lakes it should be that much easier to manage them properly. If our Walleye grow so much slower than why have any retention whatsoever of larger fish. That just doesn’t make any sense at all. I’ve heard the argument about retaining a large fish means it has had a chance to spawn already thereby replacing itself. That’s bad science and a flawed ideology. Gord Pyzer penned an article last year using scientific data from various regions both sides of the border and the conclusion was that the largest fish, wherever they may swim, should always be released for the good and overall health of the fishery no exceptions. They are the prime breeders and have proven genetics to grow large offspring. The largest Walleye are not sterile or poor producers as some previously thought. In fact they lay down thousands of more healthy eggs than a smaller fish and their offspring are predispositioned to have the best chances at survival and growing to trophy class. I gave the fisheries bio a copy of the article and he still disputed it, even though it was written by one of the most preeminent fisheries experts in the country....what does that tell you

[Kurt505]

Angler pressure per km of fishable water. Go to lesser slave. Less people fishing than on ridge, st mary's, chin ect per km of water.

Another major concern is how low they let the reservoirs in southern Alberta get. Last winter ridge was the lowest I have seen it in years. Cant sustain healthy fish populations in a few small deep pools



Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

I think due to the fact of such a high fluctuation in water levels that reservoirs have to be under special regulations, but for the most part the natural water bodies remain fairly consistent.

I would say most lakes lose their fish populations more so due to natural events like winter kill rather than angling pressure.

Alberta has never had a one fish limit, let alone a slot size one fish limit. I'd be willing to bet it would create healthier lakes in general.

If more opportunities were available then I'm sure the anglers would spread out. Right now I'm worried that how they have it set up they are going to fish out the few lakes we have open for retention.

[bobalong]

I am pretty sure that this is no profitable. Although it is revenue, it is a pittance to the cost of running the system.

Im with Pikergolf, I dont mind the tag system at all. The down side it is expensive to run.





The hard part about this entire plan is to convince biologists that stocking any walleye again is a good plan. The focus in Alberta seems to be trout, we as Fish and Game associations, Alberta Conservation Association, and concerned stakeholders need to step up and work hard to get something going. I know the Alberta Fish and Game Association is working on getting something done.

http://letsgooutdoors.ca/blogs/item/247-a-fishing-future-for-alberta

!

It is not the biologist that need to be convinced, they know that stocking has got to be done on a yearly basis to sustain our fisheries. Years ago I worked with a few on the Fisheries Roundtable and all the good ideas listed here were suggested over ten years ago........the reason it doesn't happen is the same...the govt.(regardless of party) will not allocate funds for it.

AFGA even introduced a stocking program that had been developed in Sk. where F/G clubs would aerate a small pond/dugout and plant walleye fry in them and then trap then and restock them. Survival rates were in the 40-50% range instead of usually less than 5%.

The cost was about 5000K at that time (2005) which many clubs that were represented there said they could easily raise. So with the exception of a small bit of salary required for biologist to just oversee the project...........it was flatly refused. As I have said many times there is no long term commitment in our province to our fisheries and it has been like that for years.

[bobalong]

I think due to the fact of such a high fluctuation in water levels that reservoirs have to be under special regulations, but for the most part the natural water bodies remain fairly consistent.

I would say most lakes lose their fish populations more so due to natural events like winter kill rather than angling pressure. Without a doubt winter kill, cold springs effect survival rates but I don't think you have any idea the effect that sport fishing has on our fish populations. If anglers are not hugely responsible for decreased fish populations why do you think that all the changes to our regs involved either eliminating completely or severely reducing angler retention limits?

..

[huntsfurfish]

......... Never mind.
Will try and stay out of it.
:)

[Kurt505]

.

Sorry Bob, I was meaning to imply a one slot size fish limit vs natural cause type scenario.

There is no doubt that 30 years of a 5-10 daily possession limit and a 2 day possession limit for the ride home from a weekend camping trip was not planning for the future, however I think a one slot size fish might be. In the early 80's I believe the daily possession limit was 10, and a two day possession limit, that's 80 fish for a family of 4, even in the late 80's and early 90's that number was 40. Had that number been 4 back then I'd be willing to bet we wouldn't know what a walleye tag is today.

[calgarygringo]

I had that conversation at one of the round tables and got no answer at all. What they are saying is Gord Pyzer knows nothing.


:fighting0074:


They should reintroduce an annual Walleye stocking program to keep existing lakes topped up every year and to help recruitment levels and introduce a slot size limit. Don’t mass stock lakes with multi-millions of Walleye that overrun the waterbody, just enough to create a solid sustainable fishery and make annual adjustments to it. Works everywhere else in the world. I don’t totally buy the whole argument that our Walleye grow so much slower (maybe, maybe not, still no reason a proper slot cant be introduced) than everywhere else and we have fewer lakes than everywhere else blah blah blah. If we have fewer lakes it should be that much easier to manage them properly. If our Walleye grow so much slower than why have any retention whatsoever of larger fish. That just doesn’t make any sense at all. I’ve heard the argument about retaining a large fish means it has had a chance to spawn already thereby replacing itself. That’s bad science and a flawed ideology. Gord Pyzer penned an article last year using scientific data from various regions both sides of the border and the conclusion was that the largest fish, wherever they may swim, should always be released for the good and overall health of the fishery no exceptions. They are the prime breeders and have proven genetics to grow large offspring. The largest Walleye are not sterile or poor producers as some previously thought. In fact they lay down thousands of more healthy eggs than a smaller fish and their offspring are predispositioned to have the best chances at survival and growing to trophy class. I gave the fisheries bio a copy of the article and he still disputed it, even though it was written by one of the most preeminent fisheries experts in the country....what does that tell you

[smitty9]

I would say most lakes lose their fish populations more so due to natural events like winter kill rather than angling pressure.

I re-read your post. Edited my answer. I think we all see anglers have a huge impact on fisheries...

[bobalong]

They should reintroduce an annual Walleye stocking program to keep existing lakes topped up every year and to help recruitment levels and introduce a slot size limit. Don’t mass stock lakes with multi-millions of Walleye that overrun the waterbody, just enough to create a solid sustainable fishery and make annual adjustments to it. Works everywhere else in the world. I don’t totally buy the whole argument that our Walleye grow so much slower (maybe, maybe not, still no reason a proper slot cant be introduced) than everywhere else and we have fewer lakes than everywhere else blah blah blah. Although I agree with much you have said when it comes to fishable lakes there is a bit more to it than blah blah blah. About 800 Alberta lakes contain native game fish
populations. Compare this to Saskatchewan’s estimated 94,000 fish-bearing lakes, Manitoba’s 110,000 and Ontario’s 250,000!

If we have fewer lakes it should be that much easier to manage them properly. If our Walleye grow so much slower than why have any retention whatsoever of larger fish. That just doesn’t make any sense at all. I’ve heard the argument about retaining a large fish means it has had a chance to spawn already thereby replacing itself. That’s bad science and a flawed ideology. Gord Pyzer penned an article last year using scientific data from various regions both sides of the border and the conclusion was that the largest fish, wherever they may swim, should always be released for the good and overall health of the fishery no exceptions. They are the prime breeders and have proven genetics to grow large offspring. The largest Walleye are not sterile or poor producers as some previously thought. In fact they lay down thousands of more healthy eggs than a smaller fish and their offspring are predispositioned to have the best chances at survival and growing to trophy class. I gave the fisheries bio a copy of the article and he still disputed it, even though it was written by one of the most preeminent fisheries experts in the country....what does that tell you
It is true that larger walleye produce more eggs (about 35K per lb.) but our problem is we have so few large (over 5 lbs. fish). I believe their idea is you are better to have 15- 2.5-3lb fish spawning than 2 or maybe 3 that are 5-6lbs, theory is to increase total amount of spawners in Alberta. It is also on average much harder to catch a 5-6lb walleye compared to a 2.5-3lb.


.

[smitty9]

And, remember, the type of slot size regulation matters.

For instance, we could have a "regular" slot size, where you area allowed to keep fish between an upper and lower limit. Say, one fish between 43cm and 55cm.

Or you could have a reverse slot size - which I favour - where you are not allowed to keep fish in the "slot".. So you may keep one fish shorter than 43cm or longer than 55cm.

Pyzer's article seems to disagree with that notion though. I'll have to find it online...

[bobalong]

Sorry Bob, I was meaning to imply a one slot size fish limit vs natural cause type scenario.

There is no doubt that 30 years of a 5-10 daily possession limit and a 2 day possession limit for the ride home from a weekend camping trip was not planning for the future, however I think a one slot size fish might be. In the early 80's I believe the daily possession limit was 10, and a two day possession limit, that's 80 fish for a family of 4, even in the late 80's and early 90's that number was 40. Had that number been 4 back then I'd be willing to bet we wouldn't know what a walleye tag is today.

Without a doubt the 10/day limit was left in place far to long. I belonged to a fishing club in the late 80's and we lobbied the govt. for a few years to drop the limit. There response was that they were receiving a lot of pressure from the lakes that were being considered for a reduction, by the people who owned campgrounds on these lakes.

They were afraid that anglers would go to other lakes which would severely decrease their income. By 1995 lakes were being classified as vulnerable or collapsed and lake closures and big reductions in harvest limits were being were being implemented all over the province.

I think the 1 fish limit may work on some lakes but heavily pressured lakes like Pigeon, Lac St. Ann, Pinehurst, Moose and others would get hammered. Poaching can become a serious problem with an open lake, even with a 1 fish limit as now you can have an untagged walleye in your boat. I realize there a few open lakes now, but with a province wide open season poaching could become a huge problem. With our record of dismal and sometime no enforcement poaching becomes even more severe. Would the government anticipate this and hire more F/W officers.............I doubt it.

[bobalong]

And, remember, the type of slot size regulation matters.

For instance, we could have a "regular" slot size, where you area allowed to keep fish between an upper and lower limit. Say, one fish between 43cm and 55cm.

Or you could have a reverse slot size - which I favour - where you are not allowed to keep fish in the "slot".. So you may keep one fish shorter than 43cm or longer than 55cm.
Although the sizes are different they have done this at Tobin and it is one of the premier walleye fisheries in the whole country.

Pyzer's article seems to disagree with that notion though. I'll have to find it online...
.

[smitty9]

Pyzer artice:

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

[riden]

Pyzer artice:

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

Thanks

[58thecat]

Nobody said keep six, it's one only.

If a guy is going to poach it doesn't matter if the lake is open or not imo.

So you know the lake is deprived, government say yup you can keep one and you keep it because it's legal....all I am saying is we as outdoors people need to govern ourself a even if it is legal to take one, six or whatever is the limit on a lake deprived.

Poachers are another batch of criminals that would be better off pig food:scared0018:

[mlee]

And, remember, the type of slot size regulation matters.

For instance, we could have a "regular" slot size, where you area allowed to keep fish between an upper and lower limit. Say, one fish between 43cm and 55cm.

Or you could have a reverse slot size - which I favour - where you are not allowed to keep fish in the "slot".. So you may keep one fish shorter than 43cm or longer than 55cm.

Pyzer's article seems to disagree with that notion though. I'll have to find it online...

I regularly fish a lake that uses this for pike.....63-100 is the non keeper slot. And I will say there is no shortage of 55-80cm pike in that lake. I've yet to ever catch or see one over 100 out of there but the pike are all very healthy looking and a 60cm keeper is meatier than a lot of 65-70cm pike from other lakes.

[Kurt505]

Without a doubt the 10/day limit was left in place far to long. I belonged to a fishing club in the late 80's and we lobbied the govt. for a few years to drop the limit. There response was that they were receiving a lot of pressure from the lakes that were being considered for a reduction, by the people who owned campgrounds on these lakes.

They were afraid that anglers would go to other lakes which would severely decrease their income. By 1995 lakes were being classified as vulnerable or collapsed and lake closures and big reductions in harvest limits were being were being implemented all over the province.

I think the 1 fish limit may work on some lakes but heavily pressured lakes like Pigeon, Lac St. Ann, Pinehurst, Moose and others would get hammered. Poaching can become a serious problem with an open lake, even with a 1 fish limit as now you can have an untagged walleye in your boat. I realize there a few open lakes now, but with a province wide open season poaching could become a huge problem. With our record of dismal and sometime no enforcement poaching becomes even more severe. Would the government anticipate this and hire more F/W officers.............I doubt it.

I think lakes like Pigion and Lac St Anne could handle the one fish retention. Those class c tags would take 3 trips to the lake to fill. I'd say the average angler does less than a dozen fishing trips a year, except for the "passionate" guys and they don't keep fish anyway.

[wildbill]

Something else worth noting with regards to the walleye is since they shut down the commercial fishery here for white fish some years ago it inevitably will have a negative impact on the walleye and pike populations due to the whites affinity for pike and walleye eggs, we all cried about the commercial fishery, but now it no longer takes place, soon the pike and walleye will have a new foe. There’s gotta be a balance, I think it’s a little off the mark right now. The tags, reverse slot all great ideas, just still fail see how keeping the big spawners could be good for any fish population, it defies logic. Some of the big spawners possess superior genetics, they got big for a reason, either being more weary, genes that made them bigger than their same age kin, you would think these types of characteristics are ones you would want to keep in a fish population. Over time fish will become smaller and smaller, we’are inadvertently breeding smaller fish, no different than when humans played god with domestic animals. Maybe that’s the goal so no one can’t keep nothin no more.

[bobalong]

Something else worth noting with regards to the walleye is since they shut down the commercial fishery here for white fish some years ago it inevitably will have a negative impact on the walleye and pike populations due to the whites affinity for pike and walleye eggs, we all cried about the commercial fishery, but now it no longer takes place, soon the pike and walleye will have a new foe. There’s gotta be a balance, I think it’s a little off the mark right now. The tags, reverse slot all great ideas, just still fail see how keeping the big spawners could be good for any fish population, it defies logic. Some of the big spawners possess superior genetics, they got big for a reason, either being more weary, genes that made them bigger than their same age kin, you would think these types of characteristics are ones you would want to keep in a fish population. Over time fish will become smaller and smaller, we’are inadvertently breeding smaller fish, no different than when humans played god with domestic animals. Maybe that’s the goal so no one can’t keep nothin no more.

All of the big spawners will have passed those genetics down to hundreds or thousands of fish depending on their size/age............the genetics are not lost.

Many of the lakes do not have "big spawners" and haven't had for many years, part of the reason the population in many lakes collapsed years ago. On many lakes they have a limit on "big spawners" when there hasn't been any or very few for years.

A good example is Pigeon now, you can catch 100+ fish a day and probably not one of them will be 5-6 lbs. so being able to keep a big fish does nothing to the population in the lake as that age class does not exist in the lake.

[pikeman06]

Sorry wild bill but you are wrong wrong wrong. Where's all these whites sucking up these pike and walleye eggs? Shutting down the commercial fishing was the best and most sensible thing to ever happen in alberta. Shoulda done it 30 years ago. It was abused and corrupt in the end anyways. How could you possibly justify throwing miles of nets in a lake that our biologists classified as "vulnerable" and "collapsed".? Come on man. Give your head a shake. It's essentially breaking the law at that point to kill a walleye or more than one pike so you had guys setting to grab the "by catch" quota because there were no whites the last few years. Your pigeon, wabamum, battle, buck, st Anne, gull, whites are done buddy. Don't even go there with the commercial fishery is a good thing speech. If I can't keep a fish, then natives can't and the net guys can't either. Once a fishery is deemed collapsed by our brilliant biologists sheez done, otherwise it's worth taking to court. They got lucky and shut it down a couple years too late when they realized what they were up against.

[smitty9]

Bill:

The whitefish theory doesn't hold up at all; these lakes evolved for thousands of years, with loads of whitefish before a net saw Western Canada, and many of those same lakes with massive whitefish populations had trophy and numerous pike and walleye populations.

The answer isn't about going back to commercial fishing (If that's what you're implying).

The answer is figuring out the proper science-based fisheries management strategies that balance off keeping a lake's ecosystem healthy while allowing sustainable, selective harvest whenever, wherever possible.

[58thecat]

Yup. i find it ironic that seniors 65 and up get off with not haveing to pay for a license and give back to the resource. Im 46. It was my Dad's generation and his dads generation that decimated the fishery in Alberta in my opinion. 10 pike 5 walleye and 30 perch for daily limits. Those generations made darn sure they filled the boat with enough butts in the seats to capitalize on these limits. I grew up with a summer home on Moose lake outside of Bonnville as a kid and back then it was on like donkey kong with everyone that fished that lake.

That was the mindset back then not only in Alberta....fill the boat full of kids:rolleye2:
What I think is funny is that those people then complained 30 years later of tighter restrictions etc....yet they were part of the reason behind it.:snapoutofit:

[Kim473]

I think the slot size for tags now is a joke. Class B is a joke, 45 to 50 cm ? Go to Pinehurst and try to fill your class B tags. Catch 50 to 100 eyes and you might fill your 3 tags. Most fish there are well over the 50 cm. The slot size for class B should be 2 tags 45 to 55 cm and class A 2 tags over 55. Would mean less fish taken over all but easier to fill your tags thus less catch and release and possible less mortality rates.

I still think they should close 1/2 the lakes every year then open the next year. Alternate lakes every year.

Maybe they should limit the number of licences ( keep fish ) to say odd and even associated with your birth year ? You could still fish, just not keep any if your birth year is odd and it's a even year. Just a thought.

[bobalong]

I think the slot size for tags now is a joke. Class B is a joke, 45 to 50 cm ? Go to Pinehurst and try to fill your class B tags. Catch 50 to 100 eyes and you might fill your 3 tags. Most fish there are well over the 50 cm. The slot size for class B should be 2 tags 45 to 55 cm and class A 2 tags over 55. Would mean less fish taken over all but easier to fill your tags thus less catch and release and possible less mortality rates. You realize those 50cm+ fish are all spawners

I still think they should close 1/2 the lakes every year then open the next year. Alternate lakes every year. People with cabins on the lake and those with campgrounds may have a problem with this idea.

Maybe they should limit the number of licences ( keep fish ) to say odd and even associated with your birth year ? You could still fish, just not keep any if your birth year is odd and it's a even year. Just a thought.This may work, but your licence sales (fisheries revenue) would probably drop substantially. .

[abhunter8]

It doesn't really matter as so many don't follow the rules or regulations anyway. Been out fishing a couple times this summer, Pigeon and South Buck and had tags for Pigeon. At Pigeon lake June 30th, we caught and tagged our allowed fish while we saw several other boats catching fish and not releasing and not tagging them. They would then boat to their cabin. Aug 5th fishing at South Buck Lake we watched a pontoon boat beside us catch approx. a dozen walleye, net them, take them aboard and not release a one, all undersized. Finally they boated off to their cabin after I yelled at them and advised they can't keep those fish. Both times I reported via report a poacher and both times no effort or attempts made to catch these poachers. I have told many these stories and seems nobody cares and many are doing the same. It is disheartening that only us ethical, law abiding fishermen follow the rules while others seem to do as they please without repercussion.

[walleyechaser]

It doesn't really matter as so many don't follow the rules or regulations anyway. Been out fishing a couple times this summer, Pigeon and South Buck and had tags for Pigeon. At Pigeon lake June 30th, we caught and tagged our allowed fish while we saw several other boats catching fish and not releasing and not tagging them. They would then boat to their cabin. Aug 5th fishing at South Buck Lake we watched a pontoon boat beside us catch approx. a dozen walleye, net them, take them aboard and not release a one, all undersized. Finally they boated off to their cabin after I yelled at them and advised they can't keep those fish. Both times I reported via report a poacher and both times no effort or attempts made to catch these poachers. I have told many these stories and seems nobody cares and many are doing the same. It is disheartening that only us ethical, law abiding fishermen follow the rules while others seem to do as they please without repercussion.I have noticed the same thing with cabin/trailer lot owners. Seems like they believe owning a property gives them the privilege to harvest when ever they want

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Kurt505]

I have noticed the same thing with cabin/trailer lot owners. Seems like they believe owning a property gives them the privilege to harvest when ever they want

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

X2, watching the ice shacks on cold lake I'd see the truck go back and forth to the shack 3 or 4 times a the matter of just a couple hours, this was about 5 or 6 years ago but im sure nothings changed.

No matter what's done with the regulations, poachers will poach.

[Brock1]

.

there is some good points here though. getting a little crafty like maybe doing a keep 1 on even years in the slot 45-55 and then tags the next year.
But no tags for anything over 55. in lakes like pinehurst and pigeon and lac st anne and la biche. spread the lakes out and I bet they would end up amazing and self sustaining like calling lake.

this would maintain the value of properties around these lakes and keep the campgrounds full as well. It will keep the lakes full of fish and take the pressure off the lakes with no tags essentially spreading the wealth.

[mlee]

So I spent Sunday fishing Ironwood lake......I'd say between my old lady and me we caught at least 100 fish with there being about a 60/40 split between pike/walleye. The largest pike we got in the boat was a skinny 58cm....most hovered around the 50cm mark. The walleye were much healthier looking and the majority were in the 40-45cm range with about 3 or 4 just breaking 50cm. We were not specifically targeting one species over the other and catching both on the same lures.
Now I'm not a regular at that lake but my assumption is that IF there are any bigger pike in that lake they are very few and far between....but there are likely much bigger walleye than what we were catching.
So why....on a small lake like this....couldn't a simple slot or reverse slot work? There's obviously no shortage of walleye and yet the pike and I assume the perch seem to be suffering.

[bobalong]

So I spent Sunday fishing Ironwood lake......I'd say between my old lady and me we caught at least 100 fish with there being about a 60/40 split between pike/walleye. The largest pike we got in the boat was a skinny 58cm....most hovered around the 50cm mark. The walleye were much healthier looking and the majority were in the 40-45cm range with about 3 or 4 just breaking 50cm. We were not specifically targeting one species over the other and catching both on the same lures.
Now I'm not a regular at that lake but my assumption is that IF there are any bigger pike in that lake they are very few and far between....but there are likely much bigger walleye than what we were catching.
So why....on a small lake like this....couldn't a simple slot or reverse slot work? There's obviously no shortage of walleye and yet the pike and I assume the perch seem to be suffering.

If you are only getting 3-4 50cm walleye per 40 fish, your going to have very few spawners in the lake. Just curios why you think there are much bigger walleye in there?

[mlee]

If you are only getting 3-4 50cm walleye per 40 fish, your going to have very few spawners in the lake. Just curios why you think there are much bigger walleye in there?

Maybe my thinking is off but.....
We did not target walleye at all.....of the 40 we caught about 30 I'd say were caught trolling with a spoon in 12-20 FOW. The other 10 were picked up with a jig bouncing bottom and those were the larger of the bunch. But....we never spent any time on a hole targeting walleye. It would just make sense that if the walleye are that plentiful and that easy to catch....and the fact that the pike are all small and skinney combined with the lack of perch and whitefish....that there would be some healthy spawner walleye of descent size.

[oilngas]

Alberta Environ. / Fisheries put on a series of talks earlier this year about exactly the topic "lets keep a fish and eat it" in Alberta. Walleye and Pike were the main topics.

My conclusion is it's all in the numbers;

10% of the Folks in Ab. fish so 10% of 4.5 MM folks is 450,000 licences + or - seniors etc.

Alberta has about 800 Lakes with a fishable population. To me that's a lot of folks, on few Lakes.

Whenever they open a slot, have a limited kill, 1 fish a day limit, etc. anything other than zero retention it decimates the population.

It seems basically, the "lets kill a fish and eat it" message from Grandpa, is from another era. and it no longer fits with 4.5 MM folks.

[Kurt505]

Alberta Environ. / Fisheries put on a series of talks earlier this year about exactly the topic "lets keep a fish and eat it" in Alberta. Walleye and Pike were the main topics.

My conclusion is it's all in the numbers;

10% of the Folks in Ab. fish so 10% of 4.5 MM folks is 450,000 licences + or - seniors etc.

Alberta has about 800 Lakes with a fishable population. To me that's a lot of folks, on few Lakes.

Whenever they open a slot, have a limited kill, 1 fish a day limit, etc. anything other than zero retention it decimates the population.

It seems basically, the "lets kill a fish and eat it" message from Grandpa, is from another era. and it no longer fits with 4.5 MM folks.

According to bobalong your guesstimate of 450,000 licenses is off by about 45%, it's only 250,000 licensed anglers.

I agree ol' grandpas idea of keeping every single fish he caught just isn't sustainable today, however I think a one slot size retention is.

How many fish in Alberta?

[67ZL1]

I had that conversation at one of the round tables and got no answer at all. What they are saying is Gord Pyzer knows nothing.


:fighting0074:

The Americans certinally stood up and took notice to Gord’s article. Infact the Wisconsin F&W guys were telling us at a tournament in May were saying that that study indicated that a 3-4lb walleye would produce roughly 30% of it weight in eggs. Of that roughly 1lb of eggs only 30% of those were viable for being fertilized. They went on with their presentation saying that a 10lb walleye would produce 3-4lbs of eggs. Out of that 3-4lbs roughly 90% were prime candidates for being fertilized.

[bobalong]

Maybe my thinking is off but.....
We did not target walleye at all.....of the 40 we caught about 30 I'd say were caught trolling with a spoon in 12-20 FOW. The other 10 were picked up with a jig bouncing bottom and those were the larger of the bunch. But....we never spent any time on a hole targeting walleye. It would just make sense that if the walleye are that plentiful and that easy to catch....and the fact that the pike are all small and skinney combined with the lack of perch and whitefish....that there would be some healthy spawner walleye of descent size.

I have never fished this lake but it could just be a population like St. Anne and others where a lot of the walleye are basically the same size and are from 1 or 2 years classes from a few years ago and are just starting to be in the 50cm range.

[bobalong]

According to bobalong your guesstimate of 450,000 licenses is off by about 45%, it's only 250,000 licensed anglers.

I agree ol' grandpas idea of keeping every single fish he caught just isn't sustainable today, however I think a one slot size retention is.

How many fish in Alberta?

Looks like I was off a bit but these totals include Canadian resident as well as Alberta.
Season Number of Resident Licences Sold*
2017 294,037
2016 297,237
2015 303,212
2014 280,425
2013 266,598
*Licences purchased by Alberta and Canadian residents only.

[wind drift]

Looks like I was off a bit but these totals include Canadian resident as well as Alberta.
Season Number of Resident Licences Sold*
2017 294,037
2016 297,237
2015 303,212
2014 280,425
2013 266,598
*Licences purchased by Alberta and Canadian residents only.

And those numbers don’t include the unlicensed seniors and youth. Maybe another 50,000? That could be on the low side.

[SNAPFisher]

So I spent Sunday fishing Ironwood lake......I'd say between my old lady and me we caught at least 100 fish with there being about a 60/40 split between pike/walleye. The largest pike we got in the boat was a skinny 58cm....most hovered around the 50cm mark. The walleye were much healthier looking and the majority were in the 40-45cm range with about 3 or 4 just breaking 50cm. We were not specifically targeting one species over the other and catching both on the same lures.
Now I'm not a regular at that lake but my assumption is that IF there are any bigger pike in that lake they are very few and far between....but there are likely much bigger walleye than what we were catching.
So why....on a small lake like this....couldn't a simple slot or reverse slot work? There's obviously no shortage of walleye and yet the pike and I assume the perch seem to be suffering.

So you got out there hey :)
No surprise on what you caught. 5-6 years ago it was a good little secret but that lake it cyclical ...like everything else. 5-6 years ago lots of 5-6 lb pike and healthy specimens. Nothing has changed limit-wise for a long time so it will balance out a again. Unless something has changed, lots of forage for the predators in that lake. Always has been.

[Kurt505]

Looks like I was off a bit but these totals include Canadian resident as well as Alberta.
Season Number of Resident Licences Sold*
2017 294,037
2016 297,237
2015 303,212
2014 280,425
2013 266,598
*Licences purchased by Alberta and Canadian residents only.


Hey bob, I know you're "in the know" with a lot of these stats, and I know this sounds like a crazy question because even I think it's crazy, but do you have any idea of how many walleye there is swimming in Alberta? Like is there any data at all that has even tried to measure this? It's a serious question and a simple no is a totally acceptable answer because to be honest I'd be shocked to hear any other answer. I just want to know out of curiosity.

[mlee]

So you got out there hey :)
No surprise on what you caught. 5-6 years ago it was a good little secret but that lake it cyclical ...like everything else. 5-6 years ago lots of 5-6 lb pike and healthy specimens. Nothing has changed limit-wise for a long time so it will balance out a again. Unless something has changed, lots of forage for the predators in that lake. Always has been.

Yeah....pinehurst Saturday and ironwood Sunday. Nice little lake that'll be great to bring the kids to and keep them entertained....just wish the fish were a tad bigger so we could have had lunch. Hopefully you're right about the cycles and yeah there's definitely lots of cabbage and weed beds and minnows everywhere.

[bobalong]

Hey bob, I know you're "in the know" with a lot of these stats, and I know this sounds like a crazy question because even I think it's crazy, but do you have any idea of how many walleye there is swimming in Alberta? Like is there any data at all that has even tried to measure this? It's a serious question and a simple no is a totally acceptable answer because to be honest I'd be shocked to hear any other answer. I just want to know out of curiosity.

I can't say I have seen published numbers of walleye populations but I would imagine, hope (maybe) that F/W would have a reasonable idea of the populations before they set tag/size allocations for a lake or start transferring walleye from one lake to another.

It would be interesting numbers to know, I did read that Mil Lacs a famous walleye lake in Minnesota had about 3 million.

When a friend was on the sturgeon tagging program a few years back it was estimated there were about 2500 sturgeon from around Drayton to the Sk. border.

[cube]

The Americans certinally stood up and took notice to Gord’s article. Infact the Wisconsin F&W guys were telling us at a tournament in May were saying that that study indicated that a 3-4lb walleye would produce roughly 30% of it weight in eggs. Of that roughly 1lb of eggs only 30% of those were viable for being fertilized. They went on with their presentation saying that a 10lb walleye would produce 3-4lbs of eggs. Out of that 3-4lbs roughly 90% were prime candidates for being fertilized.

I believe you may have misunderstood.

http://ohioseagrant.osu.edu/archive/discuss/index.php?topic=1289.0

"A widely acknowledged principle in fishery science is that while long-lived fish species may produce more eggs as they get older and larger, the percentage of those eggs that are viable (capable of being fertilized and incubating into normal fry) drops off significantly. That's why hatcheries tend to rotate broodstock on a regular basis, replacing older females with youger ones."

[cube]

The Americans certinally stood up and took notice to Gord’s article. Infact the Wisconsin F&W guys were telling us at a tournament in May were saying that that study indicated that a 3-4lb walleye would produce roughly 30% of it weight in eggs. Of that roughly 1lb of eggs only 30% of those were viable for being fertilized. They went on with their presentation saying that a 10lb walleye would produce 3-4lbs of eggs. Out of that 3-4lbs roughly 90% were prime candidates for being fertilized.

Would you have any info on the author or title of the study you mentioned?

Other info I have seems to say the opposite.

http://ohioseagrant.osu.edu/archive/discuss/index.php?topic=1289.0

"A widely acknowledged principle in fishery science is that while long-lived fish species may produce more eggs as they get older and larger, the percentage of those eggs that are viable (capable of being fertilized and incubating into normal fry) drops off significantly. That's why hatcheries tend to rotate broodstock on a regular basis, replacing older females with youger ones."

[oilngas]

bobalong; just got a minute to check and Alta Enviro reports 300,000 + licenses sold, so you are right, it's not 10 % but about 8% of the general population. I suppose the number to use would, be say 325000.

Also just checked the 2018 hunting regulations and the number of licenses sold is about 100,000+ or say 2% of the general population.

[Kurt505]

bobalong; just got a minute to check and Alta Enviro reports 300,000 + licenses sold, so you are right, it's not 10 % but about 8% of the general population. I suppose the number to use would, be say 325000.

Also just checked the 2018 hunting regulations and the number of licenses sold is about 100,000+ or say 2% of the general population.

Now you gotta figure out how many of those anglers will actually keep any fish, and I bet some just buy a license and only go out once or twice in a season.

[Kurt505]

I can't say I have seen published numbers of walleye populations but I would imagine, hope (maybe) that F/W would have a reasonable idea of the populations before they set tag/size allocations for a lake or start transferring walleye from one lake to another.

It would be interesting numbers to know, I did read that Mil Lacs a famous walleye lake in Minnesota had about 3 million.

When a friend was on the sturgeon tagging program a few years back it was estimated there were about 2500 sturgeon from around Drayton to the Sk. border.


That Mille Lacs look about the same size as Calling lake, maybe just a bit bigger, you think it would be safe to say there is probably 2 million in calling lake?

[smitty9]

Can't compare Millie Lacs to Calling. Different latitude, differing forage base, different fishing pressure, different mgmt strategies.

Same size doesn't necessarily mean the comparison is apples to apples.

[Kurt505]

Can't compare Millie Lacs to Calling. Different latitude, differing forage base, different fishing pressure, different mgmt strategies.

Same size doesn't necessarily mean the comparison is apples to apples.

Have you fished it before? What are the regs on walleye at that lake?


BTW, I did give the Benicia of doubt to Milles Lacs, by 1.5mil.

[bobalong]

Can't compare Millie Lacs to Calling. Different latitude, differing forage base, different fishing pressure, different mgmt strategies.

Same size doesn't necessarily mean the comparison is apples to apples.

Definitely a different fishery, I think they have had a 6 fish walleye limit for over 50 years........so it is a real fish factory.

[Kurt505]

Have you fished it before? What are the regs on walleye at that lake?


BTW, I did give the Benicia of doubt to Milles Lacs, by 1.5mil.

Benicia???? Lol, autocorrect must be set on Spanish:sHa_sarcasticlol:

Benefit.