2019 Regulations and Reduced Limits

[StringTheory]

Hey Everyone,

Last year when the new regulations were released we saw a ton of lakes reduced to 0 limit on walleye. As an experiment for this year I compared the changes made to retention limits of the newest regulations to last years regs and the results were not surprising.

Of the lakes that had changes almost all were reductions in limits. What took me by surprise was the number of reductions on pike limits. 30 lakes in the province saw a reduction in the number of pike we're allowed to keep, most were reduced to 0.

Check out the details and let me know what you think:

https://www.stringtheoryangling.ca/2019-alberta-fishing-regulations-update/

[-JR-]

Lake isle is going to get hit hard.....have no idea why they would open up this lake so close to Edmonton.

[Bushleague]

Hey Everyone,

Last year when the new regulations were released we saw a ton of lakes reduced to 0 limit on walleye. As an experiment for this year I compared the changes made to retention limits of the newest regulations to last years regs and the results were not surprising.

Of the lakes that had changes almost all were reductions in limits. What took me by surprise was the number of reductions on pike limits. 30 lakes in the province saw a reduction in the number of pike we're allowed to keep, most were reduced to 0.

Check out the details and let me know what you think:

https://www.stringtheoryangling.ca/2019-alberta-fishing-regulations-update/

These closures have been in the works for years, I remember the fish cops telling me they were coming well before the commercial fishery was closed. They implementing them a bit each year, and I am pretty sure they have at least another few years worth of changes that will be implemented before they are done. Get used to it, this is what the future looks like.

[dustinjoels]

Lake isle is going to get hit hard.....have no idea why they would open up this lake so close to Edmonton.

It winter kills every few years anyways. Might as well let people keep them if the lake gets killed off every 3-5 years.

[StringTheory]

These closures have been in the works for years, I remember the fish cops telling me they were coming well before the commercial fishery was closed. They implementing them a bit each year, and I am pretty sure they have at least another few years worth of changes that will be implemented before they are done. Get used to it, this is what the future looks like.

That's interesting. I'm sure closures have been in the works for a while as it probably takes a long time to implement any changes. Unfortunately Alberta has a lot of anglers per lake and managing the fishing pressure isn't a job I envy. I do wish they were a bit more open with the user groups though!

[RavYak]

I believe the problem is with the biologists fsi system used to categorise lakes. This system primarily uses FIN netting result data to estimate pike and walleye populations then categorises the lake based on numbers and sizes of fish. What I consider to be the problem is that I believe their standards are too high, they only consider lakes that have very high numbers of fish(low and very low FSI rankings) and good spreads of age classes to be considered healthy sustainable populations. In order to meet these requirements you are talking lakes like Pigeon, Ste. Anne, Lesser Slave, Calling etc for walleye. While lakes like Sylvan, Battle, Gull and other similar lakes come up as low/moderate results even though they have what I consider to be good populations. I also believe the FIN netting for pike is flawed since they stick to structure especially in shallow and weedy water in which they don't place nets. Some lakes like say Battle lake have lots of pike right up to the old 63 cm limit. I have literally caught 50 pike in an afternoon out there and yet the pike under this system and netting data are considered "High Risk" to sustainability... Sorry but the system is completely flawed if "High Risk" to sustainability means lots of fish up to the size limit. Sure their nets show almost no fish over 63 cm and that is largely representative of the lake and you are lucky to catch a couple fish over 63 cm and rarely anything significantly bigger but that doesn't make the lake unhealthy imo though. It just means that yes there is significant angling pressure that keeps the population limited to the size limit the biologists impose. If 63 cm isn't large enough for the biologists now then change the limits to 70 cm rather then making it 0 retention... Guess what would happen with 70 cm regs. Lots of pike ranging from 40-70 cm in the lake and still happy anglers that can take a 70 cm pike home with them... Anyone that has targeted and caught small pike know they like to stick right up in the weeds in the shallows, impossible to net these locations and that is why pike FIN netting results almost always make the lakes small pike populations sound a lot worse then what it actually is, something I consider to be a flaw with the system and have brought up with biologists who pretty much confirmed that no they don't place nets in the weed beds.

Unfortunately biologists do not really care about fishing. They are supposed to manage fish stocks and they can do this most easily by setting 0 limits... Without a change in direction to go away from the tag systems and focus on keeping open retention in place I believe all we will see is even more retention limits dropping year after year as all they are doing is focusing the retention angling on even fewer and fewer water bodies each year.

More info on the FSI system.
https://www.alberta.ca/fish-sustainability-index-overview.aspx

More info on the FIN netting system.
https://www.alberta.ca/fall-index-netting-overview.aspx

[Kim473]

Lowering the limits on pike. LOL
I don't see how that will help. More Walleye in the lakes, less bait fish and fewer perch is what I see is the problem that pike numbers are down.

Look at Wabamun, Walleye numbers and size climbing, catch and release pike for the last 15 or more years. Caught pike are getting smaller and fewer every year since the Walleye were restocked.:thinking-006::thinking-006:

[SNAPFisher]

That's interesting. I'm sure closures have been in the works for a while as it probably takes a long time to implement any changes. Unfortunately Alberta has a lot of anglers per lake and managing the fishing pressure isn't a job I envy. I do wish they were a bit more open with the user groups though!

I'm surprised that you are surprised. You were around for this, no?

https://talkaep.alberta.ca/northern-pike-and-walleye-management-frameworks

You may wish to amend your blog a bit. Thanks though for summarizing the changes. I think that was a worthwhile read for me.

[pikeman06]

With all these lakes catch and release and nobody seems to think there is any mortality associated with such practise, why the spring closure then?

[StringTheory]

I'm surprised that you are surprised. You were around for this, no?

https://talkaep.alberta.ca/northern-pike-and-walleye-management-frameworks

You may wish to amend your blog a bit. Thanks though for summarizing the changes. I think that was a worthwhile read for me.

Thanks for the feedback SNAPFisher. You are right I was around for the process, but at the time I was not paying as much attention as I am now. I will definitely sit down and read the management framework this weekend on the link you posted and may make amendments as you suggest.

[StringTheory]

I believe the problem is with the biologists fsi system used to categorise lakes. This system primarily uses FIN netting result data to estimate pike and walleye populations then categorises the lake based on numbers and sizes of fish. What I consider to be the problem is that I believe their standards are too high, they only consider lakes that have very high numbers of fish(low and very low FSI rankings) and good spreads of age classes to be considered healthy sustainable populations. In order to meet these requirements you are talking lakes like Pigeon, Ste. Anne, Lesser Slave, Calling etc for walleye. While lakes like Sylvan, Battle, Gull and other similar lakes come up as low/moderate results even though they have what I consider to be good populations. I also believe the FIN netting for pike is flawed since they stick to structure especially in shallow and weedy water in which they don't place nets. Some lakes like say Battle lake have lots of pike right up to the old 63 cm limit. I have literally caught 50 pike in an afternoon out there and yet the pike under this system and netting data are considered "High Risk" to sustainability... Sorry but the system is completely flawed if "High Risk" to sustainability means lots of fish up to the size limit. Sure their nets show almost no fish over 63 cm and that is largely representative of the lake and you are lucky to catch a couple fish over 63 cm and rarely anything significantly bigger but that doesn't make the lake unhealthy imo though. It just means that yes there is significant angling pressure that keeps the population limited to the size limit the biologists impose. If 63 cm isn't large enough for the biologists now then change the limits to 70 cm rather then making it 0 retention... Guess what would happen with 70 cm regs. Lots of pike ranging from 40-70 cm in the lake and still happy anglers that can take a 70 cm pike home with them... Anyone that has targeted and caught small pike know they like to stick right up in the weeds in the shallows, impossible to net these locations and that is why pike FIN netting results almost always make the lakes small pike populations sound a lot worse then what it actually is, something I consider to be a flaw with the system and have brought up with biologists who pretty much confirmed that no they don't place nets in the weed beds.

Unfortunately biologists do not really care about fishing. They are supposed to manage fish stocks and they can do this most easily by setting 0 limits... Without a change in direction to go away from the tag systems and focus on keeping open retention in place I believe all we will see is even more retention limits dropping year after year as all they are doing is focusing the retention angling on even fewer and fewer water bodies each year.

More info on the FSI system.
https://www.alberta.ca/fish-sustainability-index-overview.aspx

More info on the FIN netting system.
https://www.alberta.ca/fall-index-netting-overview.aspx

Thanks for the links RavYak, the netting and sustainability is something I am trying to learn more about so I will poke around those sites too.