If you could make the walleye regs?

[trigger7mm]

If it was up to you, what would you propose as a walleye limit in Alberta? Personnally, I’d say 2 per day under 16”, and 2 in possession. That at we would be protecting the spawners, and still have a feed of fresh fish.

[chedder]

Agree with leaving the big ones to reproduce. Maybe a slot size 15 to 20" (38-50 cm). Even 1 a day would be better than this stupid tag system. Makes it so I don't even bother for walleye in alberta. Just go visit relatives in sasky instead.

[tool]

Are the Walleye populations THAT dismal in Alberta?

I've never fished for them in Alberta, but I've caught hundreds and hundreds of them in Sask MB and Ontario.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the deal?

[trigger7mm]

We are the only province in Canada, or the US for that matter, that targets the spawner size fish for retention.

[oilngas]

we are also one of the largest provinces in size but we have only 800 lakes with fishable populations for about 300,000 fishers. If it was up to me I would support zero retention for all fish say 150 km's north of Hwy. 16 all the way south to Montana.

[huntsfurfish]

If it was up to you, what would you propose as a walleye limit in Alberta? Personnally, I’d say 2 per day under 16”, and 2 in possession. That at we would be protecting the spawners, and still have a feed of fresh fish.

Then we would soon have crashed walleye fisheries. Fish wont make it to spawning size.



This is why Im glad it is not up to the fisherman.:(:argue2:



On the other hand you can eat all the carp you want, no limits.:)

[dodgeboy1979]

I would be happy to see a limit of some sort like a slot size etc... but the biggest issue is the lack of stocking. If we have a limit the lakes would be fished out in a couple years time. We would need a real aggressive stocking program to allow for open limits on walleye in most lakes.

[graybeard]

As a catch and release guy, I am ok with the way it is now. I simply like the sport and I don't have to eat them.

Leave it up to the fishermen and it won't be long, we'll be complaining about "where are all the fish"?

Look how long it took Pine Coulee Reservoir to get fished out when given a green light..... Five walleye a day per fisherman.

I witnessed our new Canadians pull up with 4-6 guys in the vehicle. Fishing rod in one hand and a 5 gallon paint pail in the other and haul in hand over fist a lot more that 5.....

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

[1899b]

As a catch and release guy, I am ok with the way it is now. I simply like the sport and I don't have to eat them.

Leave it up to the fishermen and it won't be long, we'll be complaining about "where are all the fish"?

Look how long it took Pine Coulee Reservoir to get fished out when given a green light..... Five walleye a day per fisherman.

I witnessed our new Canadians pull up with 4-6 guys in the vehicle. Fishing rod in one hand and a 5 gallon paint pail in the other and haul in hand over fist a lot more that 5.....

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR



Sounds alot like my Dad and my Grandfather generation when limits of 30 perch were allowed. Its not just " New Canadians". My Dad's generation and Grandfathers generation took care of things over the years in the same light.

[kevinhits]

As a catch and release guy, I am ok with the way it is now. I simply like the sport and I don't have to eat them.

Leave it up to the fishermen and it won't be long, we'll be complaining about "where are all the fish"?

Look how long it took Pine Coulee Reservoir to get fished out when given a green light..... Five walleye a day per fisherman.

I witnessed our new Canadians pull up with 4-6 guys in the vehicle. Fishing rod in one hand and a 5 gallon paint pail in the other and haul in hand over fist a lot more that 5.....

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

It was actually a limit of 3...LOL

Also, I have heard many times that PCR was netted before the new limits were implemented and walleye were relocated else where.....

[trigger7mm]

Then we would soon have crashed walleye fisheries. Fish wont make it to spawning size.



This is why Im glad it is not up to the fisherman.:(:argue2:



On the other hand you can eat all the carp you want, no limits.:)

You make an excellent point huntsfurfish. I tend to rethink my views on this one. Not being able to keep any walleye is a hell of a lot better than having no walleye at all. If you want to eat fish, go to the fish market. It would be a lot cheaper to do it that way.

[trigger7mm]

Sounds alot like my Dad and my Grandfather generation when limits of 30 perch were allowed. Its not just " New Canadians". My Dad's generation and Grandfathers generation took care of things over the years in the same light.

I remember when I was a kid, there was no limit on perch. Walleye and pike were 10 each per day. Ice fisherman used to fish Moose Lake in the late winter, and take out pails of perch day after day back then.

[walleyechaser]

If it was up to you, what would you propose as a walleye limit in Alberta? Personnally, I’d say 2 per day under 16”, and 2 in possession. That at we would be protecting the spawners, and still have a feed of fresh fish.It's bad enough already that will crash it completely. 0 retention on all southern alberta walleye fisheries and then institute a tag system once fish are thriving. We know this works

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[NSR Fisher]

Before this one goes completely off the rails, i'll give my 2 cents.

I don't honestly have a strong opinion either way on the subject, but I will say this:

Myself as well as a lot of my fishing buddies / people in facebook groups all agree they are catching the biggest walleye they can remember the last 2 years.

Maybe something is working with the current regs?

On a few lakes and rivers I wont mention (within 2.5 hours of edmonton), you can consistently catch 30" walleye if you know what you're doing.

Obviously its not perfect but its definitely better than when the population was on the brink.

Could certain lakes use more harvest? Sure. Could some use less? Perhaps. More studies need to be done and without any money put forward by the province the powers that be have to resort to annoying things like tags etc etc.

Its impossible to please everyone in a province like alberta due to the pressure vs the amount of water available, but they are doing pretty OK with Walleye management I would have to say.

[Walleyedude]

Also, I have heard many times that PCR was netted before the new limits were implemented and walleye were relocated else where.....

Where did you hear that?

I'd be amazed if that was true...

[Penner]

Then we would soon have crashed walleye fisheries. Fish wont make it to spawning size.

This is why Im glad it is not up to the fisherman.

Agreed 100% on both points.

However if it were up to me I'd...
- continued C&R for collapsed populations
- province wide slot limit of 1 between 45cm-to-46cm for non-collapsed populations
- continued draws opportunities for population management on lakes with overabundant populations.
- would need to do something similar to the above for pike as well.

[Drewski Canuck]

In the St. Paul area lakes have been closed as long as 20 years, yet Bios still think the lake is collapsed for walleye? How many generations of fish are needed before a lake can be opened on any basis? According to the Bios, the lakes up there can never be opened. That is the obvious conclusion from their actions.

The Wild Rose MLA for the area did an open house last year and invited the bios to explain themselves. MANY people asked the same question.

Either there were no walleye in the lakes to start with, or some other group was removing all the walleye so the sport fishing closure was irrelevant.

If some other group is removing all the walleye, then what difference will it make if the sport fishermen be allowed to harvest as well?

As such, the reality that there is some other group that continually removes the walleye from these closed lakes means that the resource depletion is occurring regardless of sport fishing regulation, making such sport fishing closures meaningless.

In other words, after 100 years of sport fishing closure on these lakes, there still will be no walleye.

If that is the case, what difference will it make to allow harvest by sport fishermen on these lakes that have been closed for 20 years?

Simply put, the slot size system in Calling Lake is a shining example of allowing initial recruitment, and for the fish that make it past the slot size, continued recruitment. This will spread the sport fishing pressure across more water bodies, and reduce the catch and release hooking mortality that is killing far more fish than any retention of fish ever did.

Drewski

[NSR Fisher]

Well said Drewski.

I think slot sizes could work wonders on some of the lakes with "stunted" populations.

Pigeon Lake has not sold all of its tags since they came out with the damn things, and the fish will become stunted.

How about lets open a slot of 1 fish a day from 40 to 50 CM? You would be catching 60+ CM walleye with regularity in that lake within a few years. It would be like Calling Lake except an hour from the city. I bet with a lower (but better quality) population, you would start catching those nice 10+ pound pike that used to be normal in Pigeon.

That is just one example but the logic is sound IMO.

[Salavee]

Are the Walleye populations THAT dismal in Alberta?

I've never fished for them in Alberta, but I've caught hundreds and hundreds of them in Sask MB and Ontario.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the deal?

We don't really know for sure. It was always thought that each individual waterbody required an actual inventory to quantify age classes and recruitment prior to setting any slot sizes or limits. AFIK that has never been done in Alberta. Some Lakes ( three, I think-Baptiste,S Buck and Moose) were electro-fished in the late 80's to determine just that but the study was never completed. At that time, Alberta had only 110 Lakes that supported viable Walleye populations. I don't think that has changed much, especially with the Cold Lake hatchery being shut down many years ago. The Alberta Walleye Fishery has been in a bad state of neglect for more than three decades now and likely won't get any better the way things are going.

[Drewski Canuck]

Salavee,

Fisheries does index netting on many lakes using numerous sets at different locations. The nets are special in that the mesh size goes from very small to large, allowing an inventory of many different species and age classes.

This used to be done in the fall but there was a shift to doing the netting in August. The data is for many many years on a number of lakes.

From that, age classes can be represented, and growth rates can be determined.

Regardless of these efforts, Fisheries still fails or refuses to recognize that some lakes can take fishing pressure for walleye, and cuts the recreational users out of the ongoing harvest from the non regulated crowd.

On Lac La Biche, I understand that there were over 100 Metis and FN netters issued permits and at it at various times last winter. The rest of us just sat back in amazement that individual netters must be eating morning, noon, and night, to consume all the fish that some of them caught.

These users have gone far beyond subsistence use in their consumption, and Fisheries has very little respect for the rest of us who paid the tax dollars to rehabilitate Lac La Biche in the first place.

Is there one good reason to cut the rest of us out of enjoyment and use of the resource, where it makes no difference to the population that is getting hammered by the non regulated crowd?

The reality is that the more fish that are in the lake the more the non regulated group will take, as their need is seemingly endless.

Drewski

[Habfan]

Then we would soon have crashed walleye fisheries. Fish wont make it to spawning size.



This is why Im glad it is not up to the fisherman.:(:argue2:



On the other hand you can eat all the carp you want, no limits.:)

:thinking-006: Hmmm, if you can keep smaller walleyes in The rest of Canada, how do those provinces still have fish that reproduce ?? You can’t catch all the fish, all the time !!:snapoutofit:

[huntsfurfish]

:thinking-006: Hmmm, if you can keep smaller walleyes in The rest of Canada, how do those provinces still have fish that reproduce ?? You can’t catch all the fish, all the time !!:snapoutofit:

Thats easy, much less fish here, water too.

Had 16" size limit here before and fisheries crashed. Few fish got to spawn. I really do not want to see that again.

So quite simple really.

[Habfan]

Thats easy, much less fish here, water too.

Had 16" size limit here before and fisheries crashed. Few fish got to spawn. I really do not want to see that again.

So quite simple really.

I really think the simple answer is to stock walleyes in waters that can sustain a healthy population, instead of using fisheries $ on things not related to fishing.

[huntsfurfish]

I really think the simple answer is to stock walleyes in waters that can sustain a healthy population, instead of using fisheries $ on things not related to fishing.

??? bolded please explain.:thinking-006:

As for stocking it can maybe help a bit. But will not create the food source and answer to the problem that so many are looking for. Walleye are slow growing and take about 5 years to spawn.

If you are looking for put and take, then trout is clearly much better suited.

[dodgeboy1979]

??? bolded please explain.:thinking-006:

As for stocking it can maybe help a bit. But will not create the food source and answer to the problem that so many are looking for. Walleye are slow growing and take about 5 years to spawn.

If you are looking for put and take, then trout is clearly much better suited.

Sask stocked about 15 mil walleye last year. It seems they may be doing something right with their fisheries..........

[Salavee]

Sask stocked about 15 mil walleye last year. It seems they may be doing something right with their fisheries..........

Compared to Alberta, Sask has been doing something right while at the same time continuing to effectively manage more than 10 times the number of waterbodies.
I think we dropped the ball big time when we shut down the hatchery but on the other hand, having the water sure helps. We can't have it all.

[Salavee]

Salavee,

Fisheries does index netting on many lakes using numerous sets at different locations. The nets are special in that the mesh size goes from very small to large, allowing an inventory of many different species and age classes.

This used to be done in the fall but there was a shift to doing the netting in August. The data is for many many years on a number of lakes.

From that, age classes can be represented, and growth rates can be determined.

Regardless of these efforts, Fisheries still fails or refuses to recognize that some lakes can take fishing pressure for walleye, and cuts the recreational users out of the ongoing harvest from the non regulated crowd.

On Lac La Biche, I understand that there were over 100 Metis and FN netters issued permits and at it at various times last winter. The rest of us just sat back in amazement that individual netters must be eating morning, noon, and night, to consume all the fish that some of them caught.

These users have gone far beyond subsistence use in their consumption, and Fisheries has very little respect for the rest of us who paid the tax dollars to rehabilitate Lac La Biche in the first place.

Is there one good reason to cut the rest of us out of enjoyment and use of the resource, where it makes no difference to the population that is getting hammered by the non regulated crowd?

The reality is that the more fish that are in the lake the more the non regulated group will take, as their need is seemingly endless.

Drewski

Agreed, That has been a problem as far back as I can recall. With the additional demand from the increasing recreational fishery, the issue has compounded to the point where only one user group can be controlled. The hammer has fallen right across the board when it comes to managing our Wildlife resources. Almost impossible to rectify at this point..as I see it anyway.

[abhunter8]

Salavee,

Fisheries does index netting on many lakes using numerous sets at different locations. The nets are special in that the mesh size goes from very small to large, allowing an inventory of many different species and age classes.

This used to be done in the fall but there was a shift to doing the netting in August. The data is for many many years on a number of lakes.

From that, age classes can be represented, and growth rates can be determined.

Regardless of these efforts, Fisheries still fails or refuses to recognize that some lakes can take fishing pressure for walleye, and cuts the recreational users out of the ongoing harvest from the non regulated crowd.

On Lac La Biche, I understand that there were over 100 Metis and FN netters issued permits and at it at various times last winter. The rest of us just sat back in amazement that individual netters must be eating morning, noon, and night, to consume all the fish that some of them caught.

These users have gone far beyond subsistence use in their consumption, and Fisheries has very little respect for the rest of us who paid the tax dollars to rehabilitate Lac La Biche in the first place.

Is there one good reason to cut the rest of us out of enjoyment and use of the resource, where it makes no difference to the population that is getting hammered by the non regulated crowd?

The reality is that the more fish that are in the lake the more the non regulated group will take, as their need is seemingly endless.

Drewski

Agreed!

Another growing problem is non-compliance with regulations. I have been walleye fishing on Pigeon, South Buck, Baptiste, Calling, Lac St. Anne and each time I have seen cabin owners out fishing (without tags) and keeping everything they catch. I speak up to most of them when I see them catching and keeping illegal fish... this is usually when they motor away back to their cabin. I have followed a few at a distance to see where they call home. A phone call to the authorities with little to no action so I will say I am disheartened at the least with walleye rules that only a few of us ethical sportsman seem to adhere to.

[pinelakeperch]

I'd like to be able to keep a walleye in Crawling Valley reservoir, whether by a daily limit or tag system. You'd think that when you can catch 20+ fish a day using Spartan methods, a retention of one wouldn't be devastating. With that said, I do not have a background in biology, and certainly defer to those that do.

[Drewski Canuck]

Pinelakeperch,

The issue is not a background in biology for the decision makers, it is their ideology on the use of the resource.

Alot of the Fisheries ideology is driven by a belief that there is a crisis that is the Recreational Anglers' fault. If that was so, 20 years of recreational closures in the St. Paul Area would have fish walking on land to escape the overcrowding in the lakes!

Instead, one user group is being excluded on the philosophy that the Recreational Anglers should not be fishing in the first place, because the resource should be the exclusive domain of some other more privileged user group? The resource belongs to us all, but Fisheries thinks that excluding the Recreational Anglers will balance a problem that is increasing from the non regulated users.

Nothing that the Recreational Anglers will ever do can compare to the constant non regulated netting in the spawning areas, for example. Netting, by its very nature, removes the biggest fish, with the greatest recruitment potential. Yet this problem is easily justification for a Conservation Closure to all user groups, if Fisheries wishes to pull on its big boy pants for a change, and take a stand against this indiscriminate netting problem on lakes like Lac La Biche.

As such, what is needed is a change in philosophy recognizing the right of use by all groups, with a slot size that spreads fishing pressure across many water bodies. Recruitment both before a fish reaches the slot size ensures replacement. Release after the fish grows beyond the slot size ensures that trophy potential and genetics is preserved. Netting does not do either.

So for your belief that the Biologists have some mystical knowledge that must be deferred to: about science perhaps, but about a philosophical approach that respects the rights of all user groups, no.

Drewski

[huntsfurfish]

Pinelakeperch,

The issue is not a background in biology for the decision makers, it is their ideology on the use of the resource.

Alot of the Fisheries ideology is driven by a belief that there is a crisis that is the Recreational Anglers' fault. If that was so, 20 years of recreational closures in the St. Paul Area would have fish walking on land to escape the overcrowding in the lakes!

Instead, one user group is being excluded on the philosophy that the Recreational Anglers should not be fishing in the first place, because the resource should be the exclusive domain of some other more privileged user group? The resource belongs to us all, but Fisheries thinks that excluding the Recreational Anglers will balance a problem that is increasing from the non regulated users.

Nothing that the Recreational Anglers will ever do can compare to the constant non regulated netting in the spawning areas, for example. Netting, by its very nature, removes the biggest fish, with the greatest recruitment potential. Yet this problem is easily justification for a Conservation Closure to all user groups, if Fisheries wishes to pull on its big boy pants for a change, and take a stand against this indiscriminate netting problem on lakes like Lac La Biche.

As such, what is needed is a change in philosophy recognizing the right of use by all groups, with a slot size that spreads fishing pressure across many water bodies. Recruitment both before a fish reaches the slot size ensures replacement. Release after the fish grows beyond the slot size ensures that trophy potential and genetics is preserved. Netting does not do either.

So for your belief that the Biologists have some mystical knowledge that must be deferred to: about science perhaps, but about a philosophical approach that respects the rights of all user groups, no.

Drewski

I get it you dont like the Bios, can tell by the slant you put on things.

They control, what they can control.

Being a lawyer, you should know the problems there(in regard to all groups).

I get that people dont like it but unless changed nothing anyone can do including Bios.

[Drewski Canuck]

huntfurfish,

This is not a personal matter with any individual bio.

It is a PHILOSOPHY in the Government that is the problem.

There is in fact a conservation closure around the Churchill river on Lac La Biche that was imposed before the stocking program started.

They know that they have authority to do Conservation Closures and a Conservation Closure on ANY water body.

They know they can do a Conservation Closure on a whole lake from the month of April to May 15 on lakes that are closed for recreational fishing.

A Conservation Closure for ALL GROUPS will allow complete spawning of the whole breeding population for walleye. Every big hen that drops 200K of eggs that is right now getting netted, sets back the recruitment of the walleye population for ALL USER GROUPS.

This is not me speaking knowledge from God that Man did not possess.

This THREAD is about Waleye REGULATIONS.

Why should it just be restricted to Recreational Anglers?

Just for once, lets hear from all the lurking Bios and Managers trolling on this Board WHY this could not be imposed?

Just for once, lets hear from all the lurking Bios and Managers trolling on this Board why this proposal would not improve Walleye populations so that we could move to a Slot Size across the province?

The Government can still sell tags, but this time it would be for trophy fish that have aged to the point of non viable egg production.

Drewski

[Kurt505]

I get it you dont like the Bios, can tell by the slant you put on things.

They control, what they can control.

Being a lawyer, you should know the problems there(in regard to all groups).

I get that people dont like it but unless changed nothing anyone can do including Bios.

Am I wrong in thinking that in your opinion the only way of sustaining walleye in Alberta is by outlawing retention?

[huntsfurfish]

Am I wrong in thinking that in your opinion the only way of sustaining walleye in Alberta is by outlawing retention?

Not sure where you got that impression. :)

I have a feeling I am being baited. Am I wrong?

Yes you are. I even like to keep one once in a while.:)

[Elkaholic338]

I find it interesting and somewhat disheartening to read the comments on this thread. Often it is a lack of understanding that causes division, and unfortunately it is the division among fisherman that allows the government to mismanage our resource so appallingly.

My hope is that as fisherman we can come to some sort of unity with regards to the needs of our sport, regardless of whether you are a C&R only angler or a release in grease sort.

As for myself, I have fished walleye as long as I can remember, and over the last 35 years or so have been witness to some very interesting times in the Alberta fishery scene. I continue to fish walleye as my primary focus and am actively involved in the WCWT tournament scene and have done well over the years that I have fished it. I was also involved with some of the electro netting that took place on South Buck in the mid 90's, and I continue to fish all over the province from Chin reservoir in the south to Slave and Lac La Biche in the north and everywhere in between, so I feel that I can speak with some insight to the fishery.

The points that I am hoping to make when it comes to Walleye fishing are these:

1) Not everyone fishes for walleye, of the 300,000 anglers that were mentioned earlier, a majority of those will never target walleye, and are primarily trout, or pike anglers or ice fish for whites or perch only. Of those that do target walleye, most catch very few, unless on an incredible walleye fishery where the fish are starving for forage. This is because walleye are notoriously difficult to catch, even for those of us that have dedicated a fishing career to learning about them and how to fool them. I will postulate that those anglers that troll red and white spoons and rubber tail jigs in 4 feet of water at 3 miles per hour in the weeds looking for pike will catch very few walleye. This is not an indication of population, but one of technique.

2) Slot sizes work. It has been proven in countless lakes in the US and Canada that slot sizing will leave the brood stock to spawn and the small fish to grow while selectively harvesting mid sized fish. Those that feel that the lakes will be fished out due to this have more faith in their abilities to catch every fish in the lake than I do, as generally when the population decreases the difficulty of catching them increases as well. as long as the spawners continue to replenish the lake, there will always be some that make it through the slot to replace the spawners and this also allows easier management of the lake. If it becomes difficult to catch the slot fish, they can simply reduce the slot size or close for a time to allow replenishment. The slot also allows those anglers that are C&R only and want to catch a trophy class fish to be able to do so and likely catch larger ones as the competition for the forage is lessened.

3) Keeping walleye will prevent decimation of other fish species. We have placed walleye on a pedestal here in Alberta to the detriment of other species. Walleye are voracious predators and when left unchecked will consume the forage base and the young of the year of other sport fish. We are seeing this now with many lakes where the walleye have been closed for the last 20 years the perch, whitefish, and pike populations have been severely impacted and the need to reduce the walleye population is a very real thing. Allowing anglers to keep one fish per day in the slot size would have the effect of managing the populations as well as improving the quality of fish that are available.

Unfortunately if the anglers of this province continue to drink the Kool-Aid that opening up lakes to a narrow slot with low keep #'s will "fish out all the lakes", or the mentality that "only the way that I fish matters and all others are wrong" whether that be C&R or C&K, we will never be able to present a united front to our elected officials and so will never be able to enact meaningful change. We will always have those that break the law and keep more than allowed, or outside of the size restrictions, however they will do this regardless of the regulations in place and advocating to keep lakes closed because people poach is like castrating yourself because your neighbours have too many kids.

I realize that this is a long post, but I am hopeful that this might cause us all to think about the state of our resource a bit more.

[Kurt505]

Not sure where you got that impression. :)

I have a feeling I am being baited. Am I wrong?

Yes you are. I even like to keep one once in a while.:)

It was an honest question, no bait.

[huntsfurfish]

It was an honest question, no bait.

Then I must apologize for my comment. Sorry Kurt.

[EZM]

Lots of opinions here - and very little pragmatic thought ....... my comments are intended not to single out or target anyone who has contributed, but rather to provide some food for thought.

1) You cannot apply a "general walleye" limit or slot size or any harvest plan across an entire province like Alberta where the amount of water is limited. As a result the pressure is high here in Alberta. Comparing it to another jurisdiction is flawed. Apples to Oranges.

2) Any management (harvest, C&R, slot size) limits must be specific to the watershed as one lakes population and health are not necessarily indicative of the lake 30km down the road. A one size shoe fits all strategy does not work.

3) You need more BIOs to be able to properly and thoroughly study a specific watershed so they can apply a specific strategy to that same, and distinct, watershed. Because these BIO's are underfunded and overworked they cannot dedicate the time or attention to doing a good job with everything they are supposed to get done in a season. Try building a fence with scotch tape and a staple gun and see how that turns out for you. To insinuate these individuals are to blame, or perhaps that they are stupid isn't fair.

If we really want change, we should use the AFGA as a resource to present a resolution to the SRD which would effectively focus on providing greater support for our BIO's (money, manpower, etc..) - it is likely to be paid for from somewhere, so we should be prepared to pay up or shut up ..... which means a potential increase to our license costs OR the re-allocation of funds from another program (related or not).

[1899b]

I remember when I was a kid, there was no limit on perch. Walleye and pike were 10 each per day. Ice fisherman used to fish Moose Lake in the late winter, and take out pails of perch day after day back then.

Lol. I was referring to moose lake as well. Folks are from Bonnyville. Grew up with a summer home in Northshore Heights...

[huntsfurfish]

Lots of opinions here - and very little pragmatic thought ....... my comments are intended not to single out or target anyone who has contributed, but rather to provide some food for thought.

1) You cannot apply a "general walleye" limit or slot size or any harvest plan across an entire province like Alberta where the amount of water is limited. As a result the pressure is high here in Alberta. Comparing it to another jurisdiction is flawed. Apples to Oranges.

2) Any management (harvest, C&R, slot size) limits must be specific to the watershed as one lakes population and health are not necessarily indicative of the lake 30km down the road. A one size shoe fits all strategy does not work.

3) You need more BIOs to be able to properly and thoroughly study a specific watershed so they can apply a specific strategy to that same, and distinct, watershed. Because these BIO's are underfunded and overworked they cannot dedicate the time or attention to doing a good job with everything they are supposed to get done in a season. Try building a fence with scotch tape and a staple gun and see how that turns out for you. To insinuate these individuals are to blame, or perhaps that they are stupid isn't fair.

If we really want change, we should use the AFGA as a resource to present a resolution to the SRD which would effectively focus on providing greater support for our BIO's (money, manpower, etc..) - it is likely to be paid for from somewhere, so we should be prepared to pay up or shut up ..... which means a potential increase to our license costs OR the re-allocation of funds from another program (related or not).

Well said and agree.

[SNAPFisher]

Well said and agree.

Yes, agree as well.

Well said EZM and thanks. The 2nd point you make I hope some on here can take and think about that one more because that always seems to get lost in these discussions and we are back to general regulations or "this worked here so should work elsewhere".

[Pikebreath]

One thing that is sometimes missing in these discussions is what a typical walleye lake in natural balance should be like.

My mother's family comes from north of Glendon and I am old enough to remember a daily limit of 15 fish (combination of pike and walleye) back in the 60's. In those years, new roads were being punched in to lakes like Wolf, Siebert, Pinehurst. Touchwood etc.

Anglers flocked to whatever new lake now had road access, The walleye fishing was incredible in those first years. We would troll len thompson spoons on wire leaders and typically boat a limit of 15 walleye per person often in just a couple hours of fishing. Then it was back to shore where the women folk had set up camp stoves and were canning fish. The men would then go back and get another 15 walleye each.

Usually in the first trip or two to a new lake we would catch more quite few more walleye than pike. Of course the walleye fishery could not sustain that kind of pressure and in a couple years our walleye catch rate was falling quickly and we started catching more pike. It was now easier to catch pike comparative to the walleye. Decent pike fishing with a few walleye mixed in seemed to last a few years through the 70s into the 80's, but eventually even the pike became smaller and fewer in number as well. Removing the top predators in the lakes allowed the perch population to really take off during this transition period.

By the mid 80's these fisheries were mere shadows of what they had been 10- 20 years earlier.

This is purely anecdotal and speculation ,,,,,, but lakes without any previous years of angling pressure should be close to a natural balance. If this is the case, then it can argued that the phenomenal walleye fishing we experienced in the first year or two of access seems to indicate walleye may indeed be the apex predator in many lakes and pike and perch numbers are reduced in comparison. It also seems to show that walleye are more easily fished out comparative to pike and perch, but even pike and perch can take a beating from continued excessive angling pressure.


Just something to think about when we hear complaints about there being too many walleye now again.

[West O'5]

Definitely a slot limit,targeting the large spawners is just ludicrous,and as a C&R sport fishery,walleye are pretty lame and boring to begin with,why bother,they are like reeling in a rubber boot,might as well go to any local beaver pond and snag sticks to test your tackle and angling prowess.Walleye are delicious and meant to be eaten,but they are about a 2 on a scale of 1-10 as a sport fish,lazy and boring with no stamina.C&R walleye fishing is for 8 year olds,if you are that easily entertained you are a sadist inflicting unnecessary C&R mortality,you most likely think that checkers is a legit sport,and have the IQ of a 6 week old kitten. I have a ball of yarn for sale you can play with instead of torturing dumb fish.

[Kurt505]

Then I must apologize for my comment. Sorry Kurt.

Absolutely no need to apologize, no offense was taken.

I think regulations should be put in place for “square hooks” and a walleye stocking program should be put into play.

Saskatchewan has a lot more lakes than Alberta, but one would have to admit that the majority of the lakes in Saskatchewan never see a boat. I’m not sure what the number of lakes in Saskatchewan are actually accessible, but I’d venture to say that maybe 1/4 of them are accessible at best.

I also think Alberta has too strict of regulations, they are creating walleye pollution in many of its lakes, populations so far out of proportion that they are doing more harm than good imo.

[Drewski Canuck]

Lots of opinions here - and very little pragmatic thought ....... my comments are intended not to single out or target anyone who has contributed, but rather to provide some food for thought.

1) You cannot apply a "general walleye" limit or slot size or any harvest plan across an entire province like Alberta where the amount of water is limited. As a result the pressure is high here in Alberta. Comparing it to another jurisdiction is flawed. Apples to Oranges.

2) Any management (harvest, C&R, slot size) limits must be specific to the watershed as one lakes population and health are not necessarily indicative of the lake 30km down the road. A one size shoe fits all strategy does not work.

3) You need more BIOs to be able to properly and thoroughly study a specific watershed so they can apply a specific strategy to that same, and distinct, watershed. Because these BIO's are underfunded and overworked they cannot dedicate the time or attention to doing a good job with everything they are supposed to get done in a season. Try building a fence with scotch tape and a staple gun and see how that turns out for you. To insinuate these individuals are to blame, or perhaps that they are stupid isn't fair.

If we really want change, we should use the AFGA as a resource to present a resolution to the SRD which would effectively focus on providing greater support for our BIO's (money, manpower, etc..) - it is likely to be paid for from somewhere, so we should be prepared to pay up or shut up ..... which means a potential increase to our license costs OR the re-allocation of funds from another program (related or not).

Gee EZM,

How about the ONE THING DIFFERENT that I mentioned. Conservation Closures during the Spawning period that the Recreational Anglers have to abide by? This COULD be imposed Province Wide, as the Walleye still spawn in the spring throughout the Province.

No need to get more bios studying that proposal, its basic knowledge.

However, you and huntsfurfish gloss over that ONE simple proposal, that would make a world of difference to each and every waterbody in Alberta which has a spawning walleye population.

So you two, tell me why Fisheries CANNOT act like professionals and make a difference for once by imposing this simple solution with the tool of Conservation Closures, that in fact allows control over the non regulated user groups when the walleye resource is its most vulnerable.



Drewski

[MooseRiverTrapper]

Slots are the answer. Progressive regs. Proactive regs. Close it down for June and July. Close it for March. Adjust slots. Make it work. Not the BS we’ve been dealt for the last 20 years in the province. Bios for lakes and wildlife management should be ashamed. Possibly tarred and feathered.

[kevinhits]

Where did you hear that?

I'd be amazed if that was true...

Well respected users on here and facebook....Someone actually seen it happening....and I believe him based on posting history....:)

[Habfan]

??? bolded please explain.:thinking-006:

As for stocking it can maybe help a bit. But will not create the food source and answer to the problem that so many are looking for. Walleye are slow growing and take about 5 years to spawn.

If you are looking for put and take, then trout is clearly much better suited.

Sorry I was away ! What I meant was, Use $ from lisences to stock fish instead of putting it in General Revenue !! And stocking helps more than a bit, also pointed out that fish need to be put in lakes that can sustain a healthy population. :)

[huntsfurfish]

Sorry I was away ! What I meant was, Use $ from lisences to stock fish instead of putting it in General Revenue !! And stocking helps more than a bit, also pointed out that fish need to be put in lakes that can sustain a healthy population. :)

Sorry doesnt work that way. It doesnt go to General Revenue. Government only gets 5%(believe that to be the GST) of the license thats all. ACA does some stocking with your money, but goes to put and take trout lakes.

Fisheries need money for enforcement, stocking, testing, more officers and techs. That comes out of general coffers. Cuts to staff or at least not keeping up with the population increases has been not so good for quite some time. So not the result/fault of current government either.

[huntsfurfish]

Gee EZM,

How about the ONE THING DIFFERENT that I mentioned. Conservation Closures during the Spawning period that the Recreational Anglers have to abide by? This COULD be imposed Province Wide, as the Walleye still spawn in the spring throughout the Province.

No need to get more bios studying that proposal, its basic knowledge.

However, you and huntsfurfish gloss over that ONE simple proposal, that would make a world of difference to each and every waterbody in Alberta which has a spawning walleye population.

So you two, tell me why Fisheries CANNOT act like professionals and make a difference for once by imposing this simple solution with the tool of Conservation Closures, that in fact allows control over the non regulated user groups when the walleye resource is its most vulnerable.

Drewski

You do realize that Treaty rights are just that, "rights", dont you?
They have priority. Maybe not fair, but until its renegotiated it is what it is.
That is why!

If taken to court what happens? If the government loses what then?
I think you knew the answers already.

So they regulate what they can. Us.

There answered for you.

[huntsfurfish]

Absolutely no need to apologize, no offense was taken.

I think regulations should be put in place for “square hooks” and a walleye stocking program should be put into play.

Saskatchewan has a lot more lakes than Alberta, but one would have to admit that the majority of the lakes in Saskatchewan never see a boat. I’m not sure what the number of lakes in Saskatchewan are actually accessible, but I’d venture to say that maybe 1/4 of them are accessible at best.

I also think Alberta has too strict of regulations, they are creating walleye pollution in many of its lakes, populations so far out of proportion that they are doing more harm than good imo.

Kurt, much of our water is in the North as well.

I get it that people want to eat some.

Some on here want to see stocking, some figure there are already to much walleye. Some want Trophy waters some just want to catch lots. Hard to please everyone to the level they want.
In some cases, just have to wait a bit for things to balance.
No easy answer and lots of variables.

[wind drift]

Gee EZM,

How about the ONE THING DIFFERENT that I mentioned. Conservation Closures during the Spawning period that the Recreational Anglers have to abide by? This COULD be imposed Province Wide, as the Walleye still spawn in the spring throughout the Province.

No need to get more bios studying that proposal, its basic knowledge.

However, you and huntsfurfish gloss over that ONE simple proposal, that would make a world of difference to each and every waterbody in Alberta which has a spawning walleye population.

So you two, tell me why Fisheries CANNOT act like professionals and make a difference for once by imposing this simple solution with the tool of Conservation Closures, that in fact allows control over the non regulated user groups when the walleye resource is its most vulnerable.



Drewski


I think a banker would advise you that it, if your withdrawals exceed the interest on your account, the timing of withdrawals doesn’t matter. Your account will diminish. Using season closures to delay harvest, if potential harvest still exceeds supply, will fail. Season closures have been on the books for decades in Alberta. Despite that, fisheries collapsed.

I think this is a great case in point for why actual data matters. As anglers, we have lots of anecdotes, beliefs and ideas, and freely diagnose and prescribe solutions on their basis, but that might get blown out of the water when confronted by data.

I think it’s more useful for us to ask more questions than give more ‘answers’.

My $0.02.

[Drewski Canuck]

And again, not a single answer why a conservation closure for all user groups from April 1 - May 15 would NOT be a benefit to walleye populations, which in turn, means more walleye for all user groups.

Didn't the SCC say that Conservation comes before Treaty?

If you do not like the answer, then change the question, is that the Government's approach?

Drewski

[wind drift]

Please re-read my post. Overall, fishing effort will trump delayed harvest from spring closures. Spring closures are already in effect in most walleye lakes. They also apply to netting.

[Pikebreath]

I think a banker would advise you that it, if your withdrawals exceed the interest on your account, the timing of withdrawals doesn’t matter. Your account will diminish. Using season closures to delay harvest, if potential harvest still exceeds supply, will fail. Season closures have been on the books for decades in Alberta. Despite that, fisheries collapsed.

I think this is a great case in point for why actual data matters. As anglers, we have lots of anecdotes, beliefs and ideas, and freely diagnose and prescribe solutions on their basis, but that might get blown out of the water when confronted by data.

I think it’s more useful for us to ask more questions than give more ‘answers’.

My $0.02.

Great analogy, wind drift,,,,

Thanks for putting the issue into proper perspective!

[mlee]

Great analogy, wind drift,,,,

Thanks for putting the issue into proper perspective!

Still flawed though. Using the same analogy lets say you earn a perdiam on your deposits....and during a certain time period that perdiam is compounded exponentially....then it would be wise to leave your deposits in the account during that time period and delay withdrawals to maximize return.

There's no right answer....I fish lakes where as an angler I believe some retention would definitely be beneficial to the overall health of the fishery....but I'm no bio....just a guy that likes to catch fish and maybe have a lunch every once in a while.

[wind drift]

Still flawed though. Using the same analogy lets say you earn a perdiam on your deposits....and during a certain time period that perdiam is compounded exponentially....then it would be wise to leave your deposits in the account during that time period and delay withdrawals to maximize return.

There's no right answer....I fish lakes where as an angler I believe some retention would definitely be beneficial to the overall health of the fishery....but I'm no bio....just a guy that likes to catch fish and maybe have a lunch every once in a while.

However, again, if potential withdrawal exceeds supply, timing is irrelevant, despite efforts to optimize supply.

There is a right answer. Limit withdrawal to a level at or below total annual growth. Spend only the profits, accounting for variability and uncertainty in growth. Funny how we can accept this in financial terms, but struggle to accept it in biological context. Economics = eggonomics. Basically the same thing.

[MooseRiverTrapper]

And again, not a single answer why a conservation closure for all user groups from April 1 - May 15 would NOT be a benefit to walleye populations, which in turn, means more walleye for all user groups.

Didn't the SCC say that Conservation comes before Treaty?

If you do not like the answer, then change the question, is that the Government's approach?

Drewski


Absolutely. Why is it even a question?

[Mitchthefisher]

3 walleye between 15-20" in the north sask.. it is ridiculous how many are in that river, literally have days where a guy goes through 6-10 tubs of minnows on dinky 15" walleye makes no sense that a guy cannot keep even one.

[Kim473]

I would change the tag sizes. Class A , 2 over 55cm class B, 2 - 45 to 55 cm , class c 2 under 45 cm.

And make all other lakes keep 1 over 45 cm in the general regs.

Another thing I would do is C&R only, every second year on 1/2 the lakes then alternate the other 1/2 the following year. In a about 6 to 8 years I believe you would be able to increase limits slightly on most lakes. and in 10 or so years increase limits or size change or even both.

I would also stock more perch and feeder fish to all lakes to feed the walleye and pike better.

JMO.

[BlackHeart]

And again, not a single answer why a conservation closure for all user groups from April 1 - May 15 would NOT be a benefit to walleye populations, which in turn, means more walleye for all user groups.

Didn't the SCC say that Conservation comes before Treaty?

If you do not like the answer, then change the question, is that the Government's approach?

Drewski

And like all rights, limits and conditions can be imposed for theirs and all of societies longer term benefit.
N
We have the right of freedom of association.....unless that association is with a criminal gang.
We have freedom of religion....unless that religion violates the law....ie killing all non-believers.

The point is there are LIMITS on rights.

No where, when these rights were agreed to, was the concept of how effective or efficient future tech was going to be. Power boats, sonar, siene nets, poly ropes, trucks to hauls all this.

We (who don’t have theses historical rights) also have limits on the gear we can use....barbless hooks, no netting, no bait on some lakes, etc

So it makes no sense why the current approach is to not stick to the intent of the agreement as it was envisioned back when agreed to. Only birchbark canoes, hand made nets, and carry or drag your gear from your home and the same goes for what you catch. Sure would limit the 3/4 ton box filled with hauled away by each one.

Also, I like a $10,000 per fish fine for anyone caught buying a fish from these rights holders. If we can’t regulate the rights holders, we sure can regulate those that help propagate/ exasperate the problem.

At least kill the financial incentives.....and make some program funding.

[Drewski Canuck]

Winddrift,

You seem to believe there is a closure on netting in the critical spawning season that the Sport Anglers have to abide by.

Why do you believe that? I seem non stop netting right in front of my Cabin at Calling Lake, April 1 forward. It does go on by so called non regulated parties.

The Banking analogy is letting the "term deposit" mature. You see, if the eggs are laid and fertilized first, and then the fish is caught, there would be another batch of fingerlings to replace the fish that is later taken. NOT SO IF IT DIES BEFOREHAND.

The Poster Ghosts from Fisheries threw up a test balloon. I took the opportunity to say as a Walleye regulation, which includes Treaty fishers, that we should close the spawning period for netting.

TOTAL CRICKETS FROM THEM!!!!

Yet they know they can do a conservation closure. That is what they did at Lac La Biche already around the river!!

So now do you get it?

Drewski

[Red Bullets]

3 walleye between 15-20" in the north sask.. it is ridiculous how many are in that river, literally have days where a guy goes through 6-10 tubs of minnows on dinky 15" walleye makes no sense that a guy cannot keep even one.

you just have to go fishing a little further up the river...From the regs....

Under ES2 regs you can keep 3 walleye over 50cm and 3 pike no size limit from the NSR between the bighorn dam and the Drayton Valley hwy 39 bridge. Season closes Oct. 31.

Read about the PP2 regs about the NSR tributaries too. You may realize some potential catch and keep fishing closer than you think.

[Keelere984]

It would all depend on the lake. It would definitely help to have a 1 per day over 18-24 inch limit for a couple years at pigeon lake, because it would reduce stunting and give the remaining walleye some more food. After the 0 limit is reinstated, we could actually have better odds of catching some really heavy walleye.

[Drewski Canuck]

And still no reply from wind drift, and still NO REPLY from the Policy Makers at SRD or whatever you call yourself these days!

You will brush this off and ignore the public opinion on the future walleye conservation regulations that can be imposed on non regulated users, while failing to do something that would even benefit the first nations and metis netters.

This is what I hate about the leadership of this department. You are a bunch of sheep who refuse to do the hard thing, that even you know is needed to be done.

You know that every spawning female replaces herself at least 5 - 20 times when she spawns. Yes some years the hatch is poor, and some years its incredible. Not so when the fish is killed before spawning in some non regulated net!


No non regulated group ever challenged the conservation closure on Lac La Biche for what is expected to be the major spawning river. Why do you think they would do any different for an April 1 May 15 netting closure?

Do your consultation and publish the responses. Do Town Hall meetings on a Friday evening at 6 PM like you have done in the past in Lac La Biche! See what the non regulated consultation response is. Maybe they will even support this!


Drewski

[Isopod]

If I could make the walleye regs I'd have a few lakes, including a few of the big lakes, with zero retention limits so the walleye population is protected in these lakes. On most lakes, including most of the big lakes, I'd raise the walleye limits to one or two walleye per day. I realize this would crash the walleye numbers, but that's okay. On a lake like Sylvan, there used to be a good perch fishery until about 10 years ago. Now the perch have crashed and the lake is full of stunted walleye. I think the pike can keep the perch population under control on their own, but add in walleye and there's too many predators (pike and walleye) after too few perch. Need to get one group of predators reduced, and I vote to reduce the walleye.

[JohninAB]

.....

[Dragless]

I've heard the populations are on the rebound for the most part due to the tag system. I'm sure it differs from fishery to fishery, but fishing is really picking up on some lakes from what I hear. Trust me I like to complain just as much as the next guy but I know these things take time to pan out if they are going to succeed. I'm sure not every lake will benefit equally, if at all but some will and some already have. I vote let this play out, the future of these fisheries are vastly more important than anyones desire to retain fish that goes for all fisheries in the world actually 😉

[AK47]

If I could make the walleye regs I'd have a few lakes, including a few of the big lakes, with zero retention limits so the walleye population is protected in these lakes. On most lakes, including most of the big lakes, I'd raise the walleye limits to one or two walleye per day. I realize this would crash the walleye numbers, but that's okay. On a lake like Sylvan, there used to be a good perch fishery until about 10 years ago. Now the perch have crashed and the lake is full of stunted walleye. I think the pike can keep the perch population under control on their own, but add in walleye and there's too many predators (pike and walleye) after too few perch. Need to get one group of predators reduced, and I vote to reduce the walleye.

I agree. Leave few most popular lakes ( for example Pigeon, Gull, Sylvan, Crawling Valley and McGregor at zero for catch and release fans to enjoy catching 40-50 walleye a day and make others with 3 over 50 cm like in the rivers.