Proposed Regulation Changes For Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes

[beedhead]

Hi Fellow Anglers. A good friend and I attended the ASRD Round table meeting last week concerning regulation changes to The Kananaskis Lakes. It was a very informative meeting, and we had a lot of support. We have started a Petition (that can be signed on the link provided below) that proposes new regulations.


The current regulations for the Upper and Lower Kananaskis lakes are: "Open all year-Trout (except bull trout) limit 3; Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout over 30 cm; Bait Ban." We feel that these lakes have the potential to provide QUALITY FISHERIES, provided that the fish are allowed to live long enough. To that end, we are proposing that the following regulations be implemented, so as to permit QUALITY FISHERIES to develop: "Open all year-Trout (except bull trout) limit 1; Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout over 50 cm; Bait Ban."

Some of the issues we are faced with are that: Catchable-sized (20-30 cm) Cutthroat Trout are being stocked in both Kananaskis Lakes. Many stocked fish are being harvested shortly after stocking. Current size limit provides no protection for spawners. Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout can grow to a very large size (> 70 cm) and live to up to 11 years in the Kananaskis Lakes. For these reasons, we feel that Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes provide the best opportunity for creation of readily accessible QUALITY FISHERIES in the area west of Calgary. This initiative would support SRD's commitment to develop more quality stocked trout fisheries in Alberta, following a survey which showed strong angler support for the development of more quality stocked trout fisheries in Alberta.


It is unlikely that a 50-cm maximum size limit would work as well as the proposed 50-cm minimum size limit, since fishing pressure on the Kananaskis Lakes is great enough that most of the cutthroat/rainbow trout would be harvested before they reached 50 cm. As a result, it is unlikely that a 50-cm maximum size limit would greatly improve catch rates or fish size.

The proposed regulation is not strictly C&R, since it still allows anglers to harvest cutthroat/rainbow over 50 cm. All that is required is for harvest-oriented anglers to exercise some restraint for a few years, while the number and average size of fish increases in the lakes. In the mean time, anglers will be able to enjoy a fishery that improves as it develops into a QUALITY FISHERY, which is something that an increasing number of anglers have been requesting in recent years. For the area west of Calgary, Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes provide the best opportunity to create readily accessible QUALITY FISHERIES.

While the proposed 50-cm minimum size limit won't protect as many cutthroat/rainbow trout spawners as would a 60-cm minimum size limit or total C&R regulation, it will still protect more spawners than the current regulations. If, in the future, enough anglers wish to have the minimum size limit increased to further increase the average size of fish and quality of the fishery, this is something that can be done then.

Thank you so much for your time.

Jeff Wilson & Jake Gotta.

Link to the petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/dekkbeed/petition.html


The New Proposed Regulations Poster.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d118/jeffwilson123/KanLakesposter900pixels.jpg



Petition link

[Dust1n]

id b happy to see that happen

[Jimboy]

Hi Fellow Anglers. A good friend and I attended the ASRD Round table meeting last week concerning regulation changes to The Kananaskis Lakes. It was a very informative meeting, and we had a lot of support. We have started a Petition (that can be signed on the link provided below) that proposes new regulations.


The current regulations for the Upper and Lower Kananaskis lakes are: "Open all year-Trout (except bull trout) limit 3; Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout over 30 cm; Bait Ban." We feel that these lakes have the potential to provide QUALITY FISHERIES, provided that the fish are allowed to live long enough. To that end, we are proposing that the following regulations be implemented, so as to permit QUALITY FISHERIES to develop: "Open all year-Trout (except bull trout) limit 1; Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout over 50 cm; Bait Ban."

Some of the issues we are faced with are that: Catchable-sized (20-30 cm) Cutthroat Trout are being stocked in both Kananaskis Lakes. Many stocked fish are being harvested shortly after stocking. Current size limit provides no protection for spawners. Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout can grow to a very large size (> 70 cm) and live to up to 11 years in the Kananaskis Lakes. For these reasons, we feel that Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes provide the best opportunity for creation of readily accessible QUALITY FISHERIES in the area west of Calgary. This initiative would support SRD's commitment to develop more quality stocked trout fisheries in Alberta, following a survey which showed strong angler support for the development of more quality stocked trout fisheries in Alberta.


It is unlikely that a 50-cm maximum size limit would work as well as the proposed 50-cm minimum size limit, since fishing pressure on the Kananaskis Lakes is great enough that most of the cutthroat/rainbow trout would be harvested before they reached 50 cm. As a result, it is unlikely that a 50-cm maximum size limit would greatly improve catch rates or fish size.

The proposed regulation is not strictly C&R, since it still allows anglers to harvest cutthroat/rainbow over 50 cm. All that is required is for harvest-oriented anglers to exercise some restraint for a few years, while the number and average size of fish increases in the lakes. In the mean time, anglers will be able to enjoy a fishery that improves as it develops into a QUALITY FISHERY, which is something that an increasing number of anglers have been requesting in recent years. For the area west of Calgary, Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes provide the best opportunity to create readily accessible QUALITY FISHERIES.

While the proposed 50-cm minimum size limit won't protect as many cutthroat/rainbow trout spawners as would a 60-cm minimum size limit or total C&R regulation, it will still protect more spawners than the current regulations. If, in the future, enough anglers wish to have the minimum size limit increased to further increase the average size of fish and quality of the fishery, this is something that can be done then.

Thank you so much for your time.

Jeff Wilson & Jake Gotta.

Link to the petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/dekkbeed/petition.html


The New Proposed Regulations Poster.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d118/jeffwilson123/KanLakesposter900pixels.jpg



Petition link


Very nice , another step to encourage me not to go fishing or even buy a lic , l love fresh fish and if l,m spending x amount of bucks on gas to go fishing l expect to at least bring home enough fish for the family , one fish dont cut it , l,m not a kiss and release fanatic , sitting there trying to catch a fish only to let it go makes no sense to me ,and if l just want the feel of a tug on my line , then l,ll attach my fishin line to my dog , now thats a real fight , l,m a hook and cook man.

[Dust1n]

you know what they need some lakes strickly catch and realse for sport fisherman and some catch and keep all catches for people who like to have fresh fish so you can have the best of both worlds

[RayL42]

I would support the change if it was on the lower only. If they wanted large Cutthroats on the upper they should never have stocked the Bulls. The fishery should be for every one and if the proposed changes are made to the upper lake then it will become another fishery for the experienced catch and release fisher only.

As for the lower from what I understand it has the ability to support spawning and has always had a native population of bull trout. I would therefore support changes to the lower that made it more then a stocked pond.

[hunter49]

I'd love to see this regulation brought in. As well as rainbows being stocked again in upper kananaskis. Whoever's bright idea it was to get rid of the rainbows in upper kananaskis and stock bull trout/cutthroat should be smacked around.

[thumper]

I like seeing the kids and young families fishing these lakes with a good expectation of catching a fish or 2 for the campfire. The lakes are easily accessible for the hatchery trucks to stock, and people don't need a lot of expensive equipment or pleasure-boat licenses to fish from shore.

For them, this is already a QUALITY FISHERY
On the poster, I believe that QUALITY FISHERY should be changed to TROPHY FISHERY to better reflect what is being proposed.

With the severe draw-down of these reservoirs, there's little aquatic vegetation to provide the insect life needed for a large, year-round biomass of fish, and I'd rather see a largely 'put & take' fishery here for the more 'casual' fisher (families/kids/tourists).

As the chart indicates, there is an existing population of big (+50 cm) fish here. If the trophy fisherman want, they can target them and leave the hatchery fish for the kids. Or, utilize one of the many 'hike-in' Kananaskis lakes for this purpose, where casual fishers are not as likely to frequent.

[The Elkster]

I would also support ONE of the two lakes going this route. Lower K would provide tonnes of opportunity for any special interest group wanting a trophy fishery. That lake could sustain hundreds of catch and release fishers without crowding. The upper lake however should return to rainbow stocking and they should keep the limit as is at least for that species. Upper K is plenty big enough to support a managed Cutty and bull population along with a put and take rainbow fishery.

In general I am leary about this direction as both lakes produced and still produce nice fish without the micromanagement from a special interest groups. The only thing that has changed lately is we lost a strong rainbow fishery. The sign of a healthy lake isn't just big fish. Nature doesn't selectively take only large fish...what about birds taking all those <50cm fish so why do we think thats a good idea. This isn't a resource strength issue this is a personal preference issue.

In the end these are all stocked fish. Something to keep in mind.

[aulrich]

I am for the creation of trophy fisheries, as long as it is balanced with fisheries that are managed for numbers and harvest. But do those lakes have the prey base to support significan numbers of large fish.

Next on the list, get them to try and establish ciscos/lake whitefish or something the lakers in spray will eat to get those bigger.

[pikester]

you know what they need some lakes strickly catch and realse for sport fisherman and some catch and keep all catches for people who like to have fresh fish so you can have the best of both worlds

Such a system is already in place generally speaking in Alberta, there are lots of "stocky ponds" all across the province for the meat anglers & several rivers, streams, & lakes that are either fully C&R or have a very limited retention allotment for C&R people. The biggest complaint I hear from meat anglers is "We need to be able to keep fish from more places than the trout ponds because all you can catch there is 8"-12" trout!" An ironic complaint to be sure.

There are some lakes which puzzle me however, such as Pine which is a very popular lake containing a decent variety of species & at first glance at the regs looks like a good place to fish for the day & go home with a feed of fish. When you really break it down however, there is a 0 retention on walleye, a perch limit of 5 which basically means you might as well not even fish for them, 3 burbot (of which I have never hooked even 1), & 3 pike over 25" of which I have only caught two in my life that big there. I asked a F&W officer about the ridiculous 5 perch limit & she said it was to "discourage the keeping of perch" there! I don't understand why they don't just turn it into a C&R lake & be done with it, wouldn't change things much aside from keeping a few more snot rockets out of the frying pan.

Another option for lakes like Pine would be to make them C&R for the summer & then have a 1 walleye & 10 perch daily limit from ice up to March 1st or something. Maybe it's just me but I might only keep 3 or 4 fish over the whole summer but in the winter I feel jipped if I don't go home with at least a couple for a meal.

[goldscud]

I am all for "balanced numbers" of lakes for catch and kill vs. quality/trophy/catch and release. Let see...there is less than 20 special regulation lakes in all of Alberta and hundreds of lakes where you can kill fish for the table. Therefore to balance things out we need to increase the number of special regulation lakes by a significant number.
As far as food in the Kananaskis lakes, there is large population of Mysis shrimp that are consumed by both the Bull and rainbow trout. Additionally there is a pretty good sucker population that adds small fish to the system every year.

Cutthroat trout were added to the Upper lake to return the fish population to a more natural state. This has been the plan for many areas across North America. It seems some feel they would rather have Rainbows than Cutthroats in the Upper lake. Can someone tell me why they don't like the Cutthroats? In my experience they are easier to catch (and therefore should be easier to get in the freezer).
I like the idea of a lake with really big fish within a couple of hours of home. Then I don't have to drive to BC to catch some quality fish. I pay for my license every year and would love to catch rainbows that are more than 12".
I have had the opportunity to catch fish over 25" in Kananaskis and it is a blast. The chance to catch them more frequently would be awesome.

[fishpro]

As a person who wants more quality fisheries, I will say that I do support this and have signed the petition already. However, I also see the need for put and take fisheries. For those who are opposed to this, keep in mind that there are a lot of other fisheries created where you can keep more fish. Currently most lakes are catch and keep fisheries, and the fishermen wanting quality lakes have very few places to fish.

[Sundancefisher]

Very nice , another step to encourage me not to go fishing or even buy a lic , l love fresh fish and if l,m spending x amount of bucks on gas to go fishing l expect to at least bring home enough fish for the family , one fish dont cut it , l,m not a kiss and release fanatic , sitting there trying to catch a fish only to let it go makes no sense to me ,and if l just want the feel of a tug on my line , then l,ll attach my fishin line to my dog , now thats a real fight , l,m a hook and cook man.

There were a lot of guys that thought the same thing as you when the Bullshead regulation change was proposed.

One thing you have to take into account is that a 12 inch rainbow has far less meat than a 22 inch rainbow. A 22 inch rainbow probably has more meat than 5 - 12 inch rainbows or more. So I would like you to consider these points such once the fish sizes catch up to the regulations that you will benefit 2 fold. Firstly you will get to keep one large rainbow that will feed a family...secondly you will have a lot more fun fighting a larger size class of trout.

Quality fishery does not mean catch and release fishery. It just means when you catch a fish it is big enough to give you a fight.

I would also say that the times are gone when you could justify the time to fish and buy gas versus the pounds of fish returned home. There are just too many people in Alberta fishing and to be fair to your fellow anglers...the resource can not justify everyone keeping their limits every time they go out. You seem to be dissing the catch and release folks...but if not for them, your personal limits would probably drop to 10% of where they are at now. So remember IMHO...as a fishing community, we are all working together to make this a great "recreational" activity...and not purely a grocery shopping trip.

Cheers

Sun

[Sundancefisher]

As a person who wants more quality fisheries, I will say that I do support this and have signed the petition already. However, I also see the need for put and take fisheries. For those who are opposed to this, keep in mind that there are a lot of other fisheries created where you can keep more fish. Currently most lakes are catch and keep fisheries, and the fishermen wanting quality lakes have very few places to fish.

Not sure if you agree but I categorize these regulation changes as a put and take fishery. It is just we have an initial delay of a year or two until the first stocking reaches 20 inches...then obviously...they will get harvested. Thereafter...every year trout will be stocked...but every year the next batch to grow to 20 inches will be harvested.

I still believe as mentioned above...the recreational benefits happen for all...and actually these changes benefit those that wish to kill trout more so than catch and release anglers. The harvesters get the benefit of larger, more exciting trout to catch...and an awesome larger trout to eat...

[chubbdarter]

i have mixed feelings about special interests groups.
fly fish only
closed to ice fishing
bait bans
in some cases what happens to the little kid who wants to or is limited to using a red and white bobber with a good old fashion worm on the end. what happens to the old fellow who has paid his taxes all his hard working life and just wants to sit on lawn chair waiting for his bell to ring. Both those fisherman just want and hope they get a bite, reel a fish in, bonk it for supper in most cases.
I have a simple maybe primitive solution. Our government needs to reward the hard working people with recreation oppurtunities on a equal level. We have way too may fawktard special interest groups sucking up tax dollars not just in the fishing sector. Social groups and look at me look at me groups make me sick. Use our tax dollars to reward the general public.
I also hate seeing new regulations which cost money..........chit who's inforcing those new rules- the 6 game wardens covering southern alberta?
Im not totally against trophy fisheries but im against doing it where the general public has easy access to. You want to be labelled Special you go the extra mile and effort to fish a trophy lake.
Way easier way to make it a trophy special lake.....build a humungous wall that needs a special type person to climb....then all the families with little kids and old veterans cant get near your lake.......that p.s. the people of alberta own.

[rellum]

The fishery in upper kananaskis was ruined when they introduced the bull trout. It would be nice if this province would get off this bull trout fetish. I use to take my boys,scouts etc. every winter up there and we were able to catch a reasonable sized fish using bait.
It does not matter what you guys do, the cutthroats and rainbows will never reach 50cm with the bull trouts around.
Basically there is no lake that can be easiy reach that offers what upper kananaskis did. The majority of the stocked lakes the fish are small and taste like mud.
Thanks guys for ruining a perfectly good fishery any more lakes you want to ruin with your bull trout garbage?

[jacenbeers]

I voted for it. I think it is a great idea.

[goldscud]

Just so you know rellum, there has been Bull trout and big rainbows living together in the Lower lake for over 20 years. The rainbows can/do get big if they get a chance (25-30"). Perhaps there will be more in the future.

Can you not catch the Cutthroats in the Upper lake through the ice?

[jeprli]

This is a great idea and gives equal opportunity to both c&r crowd and harvesters.

Whoever complained about license cost needs to check around and realize how cheap it is to fish in Alberta and Canada in general compared to other countries.

[Sundancefisher]

The fishery in upper kananaskis was ruined when they introduced the bull trout. It would be nice if this province would get off this bull trout fetish. I use to take my boys,scouts etc. every winter up there and we were able to catch a reasonable sized fish using bait.
It does not matter what you guys do, the cutthroats and rainbows will never reach 50cm with the bull trouts around.
Basically there is no lake that can be easiy reach that offers what upper kananaskis did. The majority of the stocked lakes the fish are small and taste like mud.
Thanks guys for ruining a perfectly good fishery any more lakes you want to ruin with your bull trout garbage?

Actually I think you may be leaping to judgments based upon a misunderstanding of the facts.

The reason the rainbow trout fishing went down hill is because F&W stopped stocking. They actually did a study that showed the tax payers were paying $10 for every $1 they got back in fish. The system was just not working. Further study showed stocking small rainbows did not work because they could just not compete with the mountains of suckers in the lakes. The bull trout were there for a long time and the rainbows did get big...if they could find food. The bull trout recovery program was designed to help the population recover and at the same time help cull the tons of suckers. That seems to have helped.

Now the plan is to grow big rainbows to catch. We know they can grow big because they do currently...there just are not many around because there is a tiny spawning population that adds a few individuals every year. A new stocking program of larger rainbows...which will be allowed to grow to 20 inches before harvest will be a net benefit...and catching big fish is fun!

chubdarter...

There are no special interest groups with any power in Alberta. We are fairly spineless as a group. Currently regulations are managed based upon the population, species, location etc. Regulations to protect the fishery and to prevent over harvest or exploitation or damage are for your benefit. Anarchy and chaos and a free for all would not improve the fishery and I hope you can see that. Ice fishing in some situations makes harvest way to easy and in effect all the fish could be removed taking away any recreational potential for the ensuing year. They have to balance harvest with population and fishing pressure.

Bait fishing while fine...I do it a lot...also has consequences. If you catch your limit then go home...that is fine from one point of view...but if 1000 more people show up...then a month later you come back to fish and are ticked off there is nothing left. Plus someone else may keep putting back injured trout hoping for a bigger one or just passing time till the end of the day...meanwhile they take 5 home...but baiting fishing method killed 25 more after they bled to death.

You feel that catching more bigger fish and keeping one large fish is against your rights as a tax payer...but from a value perspective you are ahead. Maybe you are just generalizing but realizing the numbers of fishermen are increasing...keeping enough fish in the water for everyone to enjoy is as you can imagine a juggling trick. As a recreational sport for everyone to enjoy...creating better fisheries close to large populations just makes sense IMHO. You are trying to link a 20 inch rainbow to a trophy lake...but sorry I don't call 20 inch stocked rainbows a trophy...

In the end...I love seeing grandpa...sitting in a lawn chair...enjoying retirement...waiting for his bell to ring and eat a trout...but behind every story there is a process to get you there. Trout don't grow on trees and their is not an endless supply. We have to manage what we have for everyone and if you see what happens at Maclean Pond or Mt Lorette Ponds...you will see the frutility of endorsing standard stock and leave fisheries. They get fished out in 2 weeks. Grandpa can park his butt in a lawnchair for all of August and never see a bite...that is sad.

[chubbdarter]

'You are trying to link a 20 inch rainbow to a trophy lake...but sorry I don't call 20 inch stocked rainbows a trophy...'



lmfao....i gonna step out on a limb and suggest you dont have the +20lb RBT or BT record i have.
the rest i appreciate what youve said . i respect everyones views. thats why the NDP still has party in Alberta

[CF8]

Signed. Great idea!

[pikester]

Hi Fellow Anglers. A good friend and I attended the ASRD Round table meeting last week concerning regulation changes to The Kananaskis Lakes. It was a very informative meeting, and we had a lot of support. We have started a Petition (that can be signed on the link provided below) that proposes new regulations.


The current regulations for the Upper and Lower Kananaskis lakes are: "Open all year-Trout (except bull trout) limit 3; Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout over 30 cm; Bait Ban." We feel that these lakes have the potential to provide QUALITY FISHERIES, provided that the fish are allowed to live long enough. To that end, we are proposing that the following regulations be implemented, so as to permit QUALITY FISHERIES to develop: "Open all year-Trout (except bull trout) limit 1; Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout over 50 cm; Bait Ban."

Some of the issues we are faced with are that: Catchable-sized (20-30 cm) Cutthroat Trout are being stocked in both Kananaskis Lakes. Many stocked fish are being harvested shortly after stocking. Current size limit provides no protection for spawners. Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout can grow to a very large size (> 70 cm) and live to up to 11 years in the Kananaskis Lakes. For these reasons, we feel that Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes provide the best opportunity for creation of readily accessible QUALITY FISHERIES in the area west of Calgary. This initiative would support SRD's commitment to develop more quality stocked trout fisheries in Alberta, following a survey which showed strong angler support for the development of more quality stocked trout fisheries in Alberta.


It is unlikely that a 50-cm maximum size limit would work as well as the proposed 50-cm minimum size limit, since fishing pressure on the Kananaskis Lakes is great enough that most of the cutthroat/rainbow trout would be harvested before they reached 50 cm. As a result, it is unlikely that a 50-cm maximum size limit would greatly improve catch rates or fish size.

The proposed regulation is not strictly C&R, since it still allows anglers to harvest cutthroat/rainbow over 50 cm. All that is required is for harvest-oriented anglers to exercise some restraint for a few years, while the number and average size of fish increases in the lakes. In the mean time, anglers will be able to enjoy a fishery that improves as it develops into a QUALITY FISHERY, which is something that an increasing number of anglers have been requesting in recent years. For the area west of Calgary, Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes provide the best opportunity to create readily accessible QUALITY FISHERIES.


Although I tend to agree with you in principle, I think Thumper addresses two very valid points; the proposal points to development of a trophy fishery as opposed to improving the quality of the fishery in general. The moniker of "quality fishery" is a very objective term which is open to personal interpretation. By specifying the desire to create a "trophy fishery" you will allow people to polarize for or against this proposal. Clarifying this point might even help garner more support for you.

The other point Thumper makes about water fluctuation affecting the biomass of the littoral zone especially in the upper lake is what I have been told is the second biggest reason (next to quality spawning habitat) for lack of a productively self sustaining fishery in any lake or reservoir. How much of an impact did your committee see this as having on the fishery?

[Sundancefisher]

'You are trying to link a 20 inch rainbow to a trophy lake...but sorry I don't call 20 inch stocked rainbows a trophy...'



lmfao....i gonna step out on a limb and suggest you dont have the +20lb RBT or BT record i have.
the rest i appreciate what youve said . i respect everyones views. thats why the NDP still has party in Alberta

I am not sure we are agreeing or not agreeing. I strongly believe that "+20lb RBT or BT" are trophies. All I said is a 20 inch (as in inches long...not lbs) is NOT a trophy. Just a nice size trout to catch versus a 12 inch trout.

There seems to be a vocal group on this thread that is trying to equate letting the trout grow 2 extra years before harvest as a trophy fishery. After 2 years...thereafter we would see a yearly group of rainbows reaching 20 inches.

I would say rainbows over 10 lbs would start being called trophies...stocked or otherwise. That would put them at 28 - 34 inches long here I suspect and that is not what is proposed.

Are we in agreement or...please explain your point further. We can share notes...:test:

Thanks a bunch

Sun

[The Elkster]

IMO the upper lake is ideal for a multi species management system. Forget this "natural" crud with the cutties and bulls. The lakes are manmade reservoirs that would be nothing but a puddle without human intervention to begin with. Cutties and Bulls can stay. Make them C&R or any other size/slot limit and leave the rainbow as catch and keep with some yearly stocking. Is there a problem with having everyone content? Oh did I mention the mysis shrimp are also non-native introductions...ahhhhh natural. Yup we're gettin' close.

[fishpro]

IMO the upper lake is ideal for a multi species management system. Forget this "natural" crud with the cutties and bulls. The lakes are manmade reservoirs that would be nothing but a puddle without human intervention to begin with. Cutties and Bulls can stay. Make them C&R or any other size/slot limit and leave the rainbow as catch and keep with some yearly stocking. Is there a problem with having everyone content? Oh did I mention the mysis shrimp are also non-native introductions...ahhhhh natural. Yup we're gettin' close.

If we could do that it would be great, unfortunately it would be extremely difficult to establish a fishery where cutts were protected and the rainbows weren't. The simple reason for this is that a very high number of fishermen cannot tell the difference between the two, so it would be hard to control.

[chubbdarter]

I am not sure we are agreeing or not agreeing. I strongly believe that "+20lb RBT or BT" are trophies. All I said is a 20 inch (as in inches long...not lbs) is NOT a trophy. Just a nice size trout to catch versus a 12 inch trout.

There seems to be a vocal group on this thread that is trying to equate letting the trout grow 2 extra years before harvest as a trophy fishery. After 2 years...thereafter we would see a yearly group of rainbows reaching 20 inches.

I would say rainbows over 10 lbs would start being called trophies...stocked or otherwise. That would put them at 28 - 34 inches long here I suspect and that is not what is proposed.

Are we in agreement or...please explain your point further. We can share notes...:test:

Thanks a bunch

Sun

a 10lb bow is a trophy only with a disclaimer eg. a 10lb bow from the bow river.....but a 10lb bow is hardly reconized as a trophy as a general sizing of the species...personally maybe.

my general point is
making new regs that wont be enforced is a complete waste of cash
if the government needs more cash to stock fish...close the hotel crack in downtown calgary and stock more. try that and see how many special social groups scream. groups you say dont exsist.

im sorry but i get alittle tired of hitler type rules that neglect the general public. i fish trophy rainbow and bulltrout from thanksgiving to the month of May. im the voice of the old guy possibly a veteran or the little girl or boy scout who needs lakes like this to fullflll their fishing happiness. if it comes down to defending them over grown men who want a 20 inch rainbow......well you know where i stand.
never mind if a 20 inch fish has more meat....the kid could care less.
police lake is prime example....

thanks for listening
im done with this thread

[goldscud]

Well I tried to find a stocked lake where kids could go and keep a trout close to Calgary, but all I could find was:
Airdrie pond, Allen Bill, Chain lakes, Crossfield pond, Dewitts pond, Grotto Mtn pond, Champion lakes, Mclean pond, Sibbald pond, Mt Lorrette pond, Severn Res., and all the alpine lakes in K-country.
Then I tried to find a spot where spoiled adult men wanted to catch a fish over 12"...only found a couple of lakes

[Sundancefisher]

a 10lb bow is a trophy only with a disclaimer eg. a 10lb bow from the bow river.....but a 10lb bow is hardly reconized as a trophy as a general sizing of the species...personally maybe.

my general point is
making new regs that wont be enforced is a complete waste of cash
if the government needs more cash to stock fish...close the hotel crack in downtown calgary and stock more. try that and see how many special social groups scream. groups you say dont exsist.

im sorry but i get alittle tired of hitler type rules that neglect the general public. i fish trophy rainbow and bulltrout from thanksgiving to the month of May. im the voice of the old guy possibly a veteran or the little girl or boy scout who needs lakes like this to fullflll their fishing happiness. if it comes down to defending them over grown men who want a 20 inch rainbow......well you know where i stand.
never mind if a 20 inch fish has more meat....the kid could care less.
police lake is prime example....

thanks for listening
im done with this thread

I now understand where you are coming from. Have you considered however that what you are saying is that you are sticking up for these people that just want to catch fish. They can still catch fish and probably with higher catch rates...in fact in two years they can harvest larger fish. No one is stopping anyone from fishing. No one is stopping harvest. I guess from a comparison perspective...do you really see value in stocking 4 inch rainbows and then having a 10 fish limit at 4 inches each? Is that a good fishery? This concept is the same thing...rather than 12 inch trout...20 inch trout are more exciting if the catch rates are good. I hardly think it is fair to call this type of reg a "hitler" rule. That is furthest apart bad comparison as the universe allows.

History has proven after Bullshead Lake that if you take a 12 inch put and take stock lake and make it a 20 inch put and take stock lake that people actually love it. Change can put off some people but if one sits back and truly understands the concept and the benefit you realize you are better off. Sometimes people say no without realizing they are hurting themselves.

As for enforcement...that is no reason to no have proper regulations to manage the fishery. Most people abid by the rules. Some don't. Report a poacher helps. Fish cops also due check. I agree...more enforcement would not hurt. In fact the new regs were followed in Bullshead and enforcement did occur.

You are also getting way off target switching from stocking issues and size limits to social issues with drug problems in downtown Calgary.

In the end... at least you and I agree this new rule is not to create a "trophy lake" as you clearly state a 20 inch rainbow is no trophy and neither is a 10 lber.

Thanks for joining the topic. It is always fun debating with someone as passionate on the topic as yourself.

Merry Christmas everyone...

Sun

[chubbdarter]

I now understand where you are coming from. Have you considered however that what you are saying is that you are sticking up for these people that just want to catch fish. They can still catch fish and probably with higher catch rates...in fact in two years they can harvest larger fish. No one is stopping anyone from fishing. No one is stopping harvest. I guess from a comparison perspective...do you really see value in stocking 4 inch rainbows and then having a 10 fish limit at 4 inches each? Is that a good fishery? This concept is the same thing...rather than 12 inch trout...20 inch trout are more exciting if the catch rates are good. I hardly think it is fair to call this type of reg a "hitler" rule. That is furthest apart bad comparison as the universe allows.

History has proven after Bullshead Lake that if you take a 12 inch put and take stock lake and make it a 20 inch put and take stock lake that people actually love it. Change can put off some people but if one sits back and truly understands the concept and the benefit you realize you are better off. Sometimes people say no without realizing they are hurting themselves.

As for enforcement...that is no reason to no have proper regulations to manage the fishery. Most people abid by the rules. Some don't. Report a poacher helps. Fish cops also due check. I agree...more enforcement would not hurt. In fact the new regs were followed in Bullshead and enforcement did occur.

You are also getting way off target switching from stocking issues and size limits to social issues with drug problems in downtown Calgary.

In the end... at least you and I agree this new rule is not to create a "trophy lake" as you clearly state a 20 inch rainbow is no trophy and neither is a 10 lber.

Thanks for joining the topic. It is always fun debating with someone as passionate on the topic as yourself.

Merry Christmas everyone...

Sun

okay i lyed..but this will be my last post..lmfao.
so your saying the little girl will have as much success catching a 20 inch older fish as a stocker put and taker? i repeat it doesnt matter to them.

and the hotel crack is aprime example of a service provided to a small group who whinned the loudest....for fawksakes we have veterans going hungry. this country has lost priorities. what makes you smile more....a grown capable man with a 20 inch trout or a little kid grinning from ear to ear with a 9inch fish.
simply put let a few crack heads die!!!!! feed the veterans and let a kid catch fish.......priorities!!!!!!!!!!

its like a donkey punch in the dark....no studies on water or bulltrout predation.

all i ask is just leave the few places a family , child and elderly or handicapped person can catch and harvest a clean mtn. trout. in a easily accessed lake. no matter the size!!! You want 20 inch fish go somewhere else.....the country is teaming with 20 inch fish.
thanks

[bloom]

okay i lyed..but this will be my last post..lmfao.
so your saying the little girl will have as much success catching a 20 inch older fish as a stocker put and taker? i repeat it doesnt matter to them.

and the hotel crack is aprime example of a service provided to a small group who whinned the loudest....for fawksakes we have veterans going hungry. this country has lost priorities. what makes you smile more....a grown capable man with a 20 inch trout or a little kid grinning from ear to ear with a 9inch fish.
simply put let a few crack heads die!!!!! feed the veterans and let a kid catch fish.......priorities!!!!!!!!!!

its like a donkey punch in the dark....no studies on water or bulltrout predation.

all i ask is just leave the few places a family , child and elderly or handicapped person can catch and harvest a clean mtn. trout. in a easily accessed lake. no matter the size!!! You want 20 inch fish go somewhere else.....the country is teaming with 20 inch fish.
thanks

There are 5 stocked trout lakes in the Cypress Hills area of Alberta: Bullshead, Spruce Coulee, Michele, Reesor, and Cavan. Go on out to those lakes in the Spring time to see where:
1. The majority of the anglers are = Bullshead
2. The majority of the children are = Bullshead
3. The majority of the 65+ year old retirees = Bullshead

One lake out of five has special regulations and people keep crying about "what about the people who want to sit in their lawn chair all day". There's 5 other lakes within 20 min...but no one goes there...cause they're all fished out, or all small. Everyone goes to Bullshead for a reason.

How many lakes are stocked in Alberta...and how many are stocked as Delayed Harvest lakes? Why do people who have 95% of the trout lakes slated as put and take always whine about it not being fair. I don't get it.

We need more of these lakes...making a drive out to these 5 lakes on a Saturday afternoon will show you what the demand is.

[Sundancefisher]

okay i lyed..but this will be my last post..lmfao.
so your saying the little girl will have as much success catching a 20 inch older fish as a stocker put and taker? i repeat it doesnt matter to them.

and the hotel crack is aprime example of a service provided to a small group who whinned the loudest....for fawksakes we have veterans going hungry. this country has lost priorities. what makes you smile more....a grown capable man with a 20 inch trout or a little kid grinning from ear to ear with a 9inch fish.
simply put let a few crack heads die!!!!! feed the veterans and let a kid catch fish.......priorities!!!!!!!!!!

its like a donkey punch in the dark....no studies on water or bulltrout predation.

all i ask is just leave the few places a family , child and elderly or handicapped person can catch and harvest a clean mtn. trout. in a easily accessed lake. no matter the size!!! You want 20 inch fish go somewhere else.....the country is teaming with 20 inch fish.
thanks

I am sorry chubdarter...

I look at your argument from different angles...and all you are really arguing for on the main topic is smaller fish. You seem to want to argue for smaller fish period. Bloom argues cleanly the facts. I know the 9 year old girl smiles a lot more catching a 20 inch rainbow than an 8 inch rainbow.

That being said...your other comment about more money in the system is valid. I know the biggest drain however is the put and take fisheries...in which a minority of the fishermen take the majority of the stocked fish. Lakes like Mt Lorette and Maclean Pond get stocked a couple times a year and cleaned out by a regular crowd. To fill their freezer is not the intent of managing for the whole Province. Therefore we look for better ways to improve the fishery while providing the appropriate balance and respect to all users. More money would be wise for fisheries biologists to do their job and for enforcement.

As for liking 9 inch rainbows...I would say...when in doubt...go to Bullshead next year and see for yourself and then you may wonder why you were upset to begin with.

[FOTW]

Lower should have the no fish under 50 cm and the Upper should be left the way it is. Best of both worlds. I have only been to the Lower lake once and that was in September, Not a fish was seen anywhere, And there were alot of bugs on the surface...

[Jimboy]

Bring back the stocking of kananaskis big time , thats what our lic pays for, as long as the hatcherys are doing their job , we will always have fish for supper tues and fridays.

[icefever]

Jake, I'm with you on this one, any chance of having something like this on Ghost Lake also as it has been destroyed by people keeping everything they catch.

[Outcast 1100]

I agree completely on lowering the catch rates on any lake in alberta. catching large fish is great fun catching minnows is boring. i have a hard time believing some people on here, if you have to feed your family with fish cause your so broke wouldnt it make sense to catch one large fish than 5 tiny ones??? or is it because you dont really know how to fish and its way to easy to go out there for a half hour and catch the easiest things in the lake???

[C@RN@GE]

I agree completely on lowering the catch rates on any lake in alberta. catching large fish is great fun catching minnows is boring. i have a hard time believing some people on here, if you have to feed your family with fish cause your so broke wouldnt it make sense to catch one large fish than 5 tiny ones??? or is it because you dont really know how to fish and its way to easy to go out there for a half hour and catch the easiest things in the lake???

You nailed it.

[chubbdarter]

thats excately my point.....i dont know how to catch big fish.....the little fish make me smile like hello kitty

[goldscud]

Chubdarter...you said previously that the country is teeming with 20" fish. For my own clarification, are you saying there is lots of lakes around where you can catch 20" rainbow trout on a regular basis within a couple of hours of Calgary?

[beedhead]

Hi All...Thought I would add some very valid info on this topic.


This summer, a creel survey was conducted on Upper Kananaskis Lake. The key findings were:
the catch rate was 1.0 fish/hour, which is over 7 times higher than it was in 1983 when only rainbow trout were being stocked
cutthroat trout comprised 95% of the catch
most (94%) of the harvested cutthroat trout had a clipped adipose fin, which means that they were from the batch of 13,900 large (30 cm) cutthroat trout stocked this June.


http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d118/jeffwilson123/UKL20Poster_2008.jpg

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d118/jeffwilson123/UKL20and20LKL20recent20stocking20summary201985-2010.jpg

[Pikebreath]

I would also say that the times are gone when you could justify the time to fish and buy gas versus the pounds of fish returned home. There are just too many people in Alberta fishing and to be fair to your fellow anglers...the resource can not justify everyone keeping their limits every time they go out. You seem to be dissing the catch and release folks...but if not for them, your personal limits would probably drop to 10% of where they are at now. So remember IMHO...as a fishing community, we are all working together to make this a great "recreational" activity...and not purely a grocery shopping trip.

Cheers

Sun

Sundance,,,, great point, C&R type anglers have indeed been "subsidizing" the fishery allowing the catch and keep types to catch more fish and still keep a few.

[aulrich]

Ironically the bow is not too short of 20" ers as well.

[Gust]

You nailed it.

The arguement of fishing for food just doesn't seem right,, not for food sake but cost of gas and time which far outweighs buying fish at the supermarket. When I'm reading through other parts of Alberta, where limits are one of a very specific range, it makes no sense, the arguement that is.

I will keep the odd fish but more than often it goes back. It's everyones right by their license but it doesn't mean they should. I just stopped fishing with one old friend who not only fishes until he has bagged his limit but is super irritable if the bite is off anddd he keeps e-ver-y-thing,, nothing is too small- too big- too anything,,,, he caught it and it's his.

Our arguement started when he decided to keep/add to his limit what I was throwing back/not keeping (overfishing his limit),, I challenged him on his freezer/possession saying that there is no way that the amounts you keep by how often you fish that your freezer is empty, no way you could consume all that food, urghhhh........... major mexican standoff right now

[chubbdarter]

okay im gonna try be civil...call me whatever you like....pftttt
first off Im not the one requesting rule changes to be able to catch a 20 inch fish....Ive caught more rainbows and steelhead over 20lbs than i deserve.
It's not a meat fishery im asking to protect.....its the basic right of children and fisherman that cant fish certain waters that rely on -close to urban areas- i defend.
do i know waters within a easy drive of calgary that contain 20 inch fish....yuppers!!!!!!
sorry if this seems like a chest puffing match but i didnt draw the first arrow.
maybe if you guys cant regularly catch a 20 inch fish you need to admit fishing isnt something your really good at. Most importantly stop trying to change the regulations to make up for your lack of ability at the expense of people who want to catch 1 little fish.
Flame away!!!!!!!!!!!

[huntsfurfish]

Yup you are obviously the only one who can catch large fish. LMAO

But it is clear you still dont get the benefit of it. Kids are pretty smart unlike some adults. If and when they get an explanation that they have to put back certain sized fish, they quickly accept that(as long as your stress the conservation aspect).

Some kids even opt to put them back(catch and release) on their own-go figure.

Id bet that most would like to catch lots of 15 - 19" fish and the not as rare to them 20+.

Guess you cant see the benefit of a larger average size!

Too bad.

[gl2]

This post is friggin awesome.... i got a good idea lets make the whole thing dry fly only and you cant keep any. That will keep those familys off that soon to be trophy fishery. p.s. i cant wait till i see a 20 incher. hahaha

[chubbdarter]

nope all my fisherman friends also catch big fish............but thanks

[fishpro]

okay im gonna try be civil...call me whatever you like....pftttt
first off Im not the one requesting rule changes to be able to catch a 20 inch fish....Ive caught more rainbows and steelhead over 20lbs than i deserve.
It's not a meat fishery im asking to protect.....its the basic right of children and fisherman that cant fish certain waters that rely on -close to urban areas- i defend.
do i know waters within a easy drive of calgary that contain 20 inch fish....yuppers!!!!!!
sorry if this seems like a chest puffing match but i didnt draw the first arrow.
maybe if you guys cant regularly catch a 20 inch fish you need to admit fishing isnt something your really good at. Most importantly stop trying to change the regulations to make up for your lack of ability at the expense of people who want to catch 1 little fish.
Flame away!!!!!!!!!!!

The fish that are stocked will be small, there will always be small fish in there for everyone to catch. It would be nice to have increased numbers of larger fish as well. If anything a fishery like this will offer more for everyone.

[Sundancefisher]

This post is friggin awesome.... i got a good idea lets make the whole thing dry fly only and you cant keep any. That will keep those familys off that soon to be trophy fishery. p.s. i cant wait till i see a 20 incher. hahaha

Some people add to the debate...and some people are just out to stir the pot. Quite an argumentative leap in the response Tosh.

I would say a more plausible suggestion would be to make the whole province a minimum of 16 inch for stocked rainbows. That way when a father takes his son to Mt. Lorette or Maclean creek that there are some fish to catch. If they catch a 16 inch...great...dinner... But at least they get to see a fish. Current regulations favor stock and refrigerate...fisheries management. I wonder how many trout go to the freezer and then to the garbage.

Let's balance everything out fairly. Have trout to catch and some trout to eat. Why does the argument swing to one side to the other.

[madatter]

As another southeast Alberta guy who knows the area fairly well I can only speak of what I have seen in the area.
There are a few trout lakes in the area,most are a complete waste of time and under-utilized,even on beautiful calm days you hardly see anyone fishing most.
One is busy,even on miserable days.
Since Bullshead had special regs enforced it has become the go to place for anybody wanting to catch a trout....big,small,young or old.
I have no interest in catching a 10" trout,let alone keeping it.....seems like alot of people tend to agree!
I'd be all for these changes,after all since when does fishing have to mean "keeping" all the time?

[gl2]

Some people add to the debate...and some people are just out to stir the pot. Quite an argumentative leap in the response Tosh.

I would say a more plausible suggestion would be to make the whole province a minimum of 16 inch for stocked rainbows. That way when a father takes his son to Mt. Lorette or Maclean creek that there are some fish to catch. If they catch a 16 inch...great...dinner... But at least they get to see a fish. Current regulations favor stock and refrigerate...fisheries management. I wonder how many trout go to the freezer and then to the garbage.

Let's balance everything out fairly. Have trout to catch and some trout to eat. Why does the argument swing to one side to the other.

if your argument is that people take fish home and waste them, then why not spend that money on the education of anglers when they get there licenses. Then you would have in my mind a better fisherman(woman) and teach them to respect and love the waters as most of us do?. I just think that the money and time to do this would be better spent elsewhere.And you say lets balance everything out???...this province is full of rules protecting fish just look in the regs.

[FOTW]

Some people add to the debate...and some people are just out to stir the pot. Quite an argumentative leap in the response Tosh.

I would say a more plausible suggestion would be to make the whole province a minimum of 16 inch for stocked rainbows. That way when a father takes his son to Mt. Lorette or Maclean creek that there are some fish to catch. If they catch a 16 inch...great...dinner... But at least they get to see a fish. Current regulations favor stock and refrigerate...fisheries management. I wonder how many trout go to the freezer and then to the garbage.

Let's balance everything out fairly. Have trout to catch and some trout to eat. Why does the argument swing to one side to the other.

This is a pretty good idea. The majority of kids just wanna catch a fish, Hold it, laugh, and then toss it back in the water. This "16" " rule would enable all the families out there to be able to go to a lake and consistently catch fish, Making the kids have a very memorable day on the water.

[Sundancefisher]

if your argument is that people take fish home and waste them, then why not spend that money on the education of anglers when they get there licenses. Then you would have in my mind a better fisherman(woman) and teach them to respect and love the waters as most of us do?. I just think that the money and time to do this would be better spent elsewhere.And you say lets balance everything out???...this province is full of rules protecting fish just look in the regs.

Anarchists love to remove rules. Fact is without rules rampant abuse would destroy what you want. Fisheries management has to be a changing game. Think about it. The playing field is constantly changing and evolving. We have fish stocks that are running low...fish like pike, walleye, grayling, cutthroat trout and sturgeon to name a few have had their stocks reach scary lows. Others like mountain whitefish and maybe even perch will be next on the list. We have an increasing number of anglers that challenge the system by putting ever increasing pressure on the stocks. The increasing anglers and taxing the waters nearest to large cities causing enhanced depletion problems.

All these changes in the playing field necessitate thinking differently when managing the few dollars available with the people that want to catch fish. The old saying that a bad day of fishing is better than a good day of work probably came from someone trying to lighten the fact...it is just getting that much harder to find any fish to catch.

So...to me that says we must look to outside the box for ideas. The last one was the "quality" fishery proposal at Bullshead that that strongly fought and opposed by many individuals...only to have been implemented any ways. The changes scared many...but now probably 99% of those that were opposed are not proponents. I suspect there would be a 10 fold increase in protests if they tried to put Bullshead back to the way it was before.

You are a bit short sighted IMHO by commenting on my small point of fish wastage and then figure education would fix an over harvest problem in Alberta. People that want to kill fish for the freeze invariably max their limit every time. If the limits are too high or the fish are limited in numbers then the fish leave. Simple mathematics of supply and demand.

You talk about education being different than implementing a quality fishery regulation...that argument has no merit as there is no additional cost to tax payers. The stocking stays the same as before but the fish are not harvested the day they are stocked. They are allowed to grow bigger. While they are growing bigger they get caught over and over again by the young and old alike. Then once they reach the target size...harvest can occur but at a sustainable rate. The biggest problem in fisheries management is provide high enough catch rates...fish caught per unit hour...to justify from F&W's point of view the expense of stocking...and from the anglers point of view the effort to try and catch them.

If you want to qualify this whole debate it comes down to few simple points.


1. Do you want to catch fish when you go fishing before it is fished out? If you say yes...then a quality fishery is the only one that maximizes this.

2. Do you want to harvest fish during the whole fishing season? Then the quality fishery is the only one that provides this.

3. Do you want to catch sporting sized fish? Then the quality fishery is the only one that provides this.


Time does not need to prove this as Bullshead already has.

Cheers

Sun




STATS/FACTS for in 2009/2010 http://www.srd.alberta.ca/Newsroom/MinistersOffice/documents/SRD-AnnualReport-2009-10.pdf

We had a F&W budget of $60.5 MM.
273,220 angler licences were sold
3.2 million trout were stocked in 259 different water bodies
52 million walleye stocked in Lac la Biche
100,705 MM in license revenue

I was interested in finding out what just the Fish portion of the budget is...but I could not find it.

[Sundancefisher]

This is a pretty good idea. The majority of kids just wanna catch a fish, Hold it, laugh, and then toss it back in the water. This "16" " rule would enable all the families out there to be able to go to a lake and consistently catch fish, Making the kids have a very memorable day on the water.

If the lake can feed and grow trout...then it does provide everyone with equal rights to just catch or catch and eat a fish.

If anyone wants to see total management stupidity IMHO...just check out Mt. Lorette the day after stocking. People are yarding out trout...taking them back to their camp and then coming back for a second and third limit. Two weeks later...a day and two young sons can fish with dynamite and never see a trout. The two week kill fest is adults...catching pellet fed trout. If this is what we feel is an appropriate stocked fishery...why not allocate a certain number of trout to each license and we just swing by the Sam Livingstone fish hatchery and take our fish home directly. Save on gas...and a 12 inch newly stocked trout on a bait hook with 10 pound test is no challenge to call it recreational fishing.

[huntsfurfish]

Well said Sundancefisher!

[whitewolf]

i guess me personally...the problem i have is little kids not being able to use bait in any lake to catch a fish...some kids daddys can afford a boat so trolling bottom bouncing is not a problem...but what about the three or five year old that fishes from shore....sure you can go to a designated pond where the kid has no standing room to breath....personaly i think a certain age child should be able to go anywhere fishing is allowed and use a hook and a worm..if its all catch and release it doesnt matter...but the kids of today need to get the chance to catch more fish easily...without having to be a flyrod master...just a simple hook and line and easy going to start them off....just my 2 cents

[FOTW]

i guess me personally...the problem i have is little kids not being able to use bait in any lake to catch a fish...some kids daddys can afford a boat so trolling bottom bouncing is not a problem...but what about the three or five year old that fishes from shore....sure you can go to a designated pond where the kid has no standing room to breath....personaly i think a certain age child should be able to go anywhere fishing is allowed and use a hook and a worm..if its all catch and release it doesnt matter...but the kids of today need to get the chance to catch more fish easily...without having to be a flyrod master...just a simple hook and line and easy going to start them off....just my 2 cents

There are a ton of places for kids to go to catch a fish. All within 1 hour of Calgary city limits. Adults would find a way to bend the rules.

[whitewolf]

ya i know....some people would take advantage of that...

[thumper]

I think we've got enough rules and restrictions- so I guess I'm an anarchist for not wanting even more.

From the Kananaskis Lakes, 3 different fishing licences are needed to fish with a 20 km radius (Alberta, B.C. & National Parks) for which you need to be familiar with 3 very different sets of regulations.

For an easily accessible lake, near recreational facilities like campgrounds - like the Kananaskis Lakes - many families are simply looking for their kid to catch a fish from shore that they can take back and cook up over the campfire. They're not trying to fill a freezer and they're not worried about how many people it will feed - it's all about the family experience. I'm for having as few barriers to them getting that experience as possible.

We've already limited a kids ability to land a fish by going barbless (except in the National Parks or in B.C. lakes - but not rivers). Thankfully they can use lead jigs/sinkers here (as K Country is outside of the national parks). And now we'll expect them to remember size limits and carry a tape?

No wonder they choose to stay at home (or remain in the RV at the campground) and play video games.

[Sundancefisher]

I think we've got enough rules and restrictions- so I guess I'm an anarchist for not wanting even more.

From the Kananaskis Lakes, 3 different fishing licences are needed to fish with a 20 km radius (Alberta, B.C. & National Parks) for which you need to be familiar with 3 very different sets of regulations.

For an easily accessible lake, near recreational facilities like campgrounds - like the Kananaskis Lakes - many families are simply looking for their kid to catch a fish from shore that they can take back and cook up over the campfire. They're not trying to fill a freezer and they're not worried about how many people it will feed - it's all about the family experience. I'm for having as few barriers to them getting that experience as possible.

We've already limited a kids ability to land a fish by going barbless (except in the National Parks or in B.C. lakes - but not rivers). Thankfully they can use lead jigs/sinkers here (as K Country is outside of the national parks). And now we'll expect them to remember size limits and carry a tape?

No wonder they choose to stay at home (or remain in the RV at the campground) and play video games.

So...are you agreeing to a quality fishery? All you problems are basically fixed with a quality fishery. That means there is more chance for the kids to actually see a fish before they get fished out. A fly and bobber catches a ton of fish at Bullshead. The barbless does make it harder but my kids have started to pick it up. If they are hooking up as is more likely at a quality fishery...then it is just fun practice to finally learn to land one.

Size limits are common place around the world. It is a very necessary rule in many fisheries management practices. There are already size limits for trout in rivers, pike in some lakes, walleye, grayling...it is common place. This should not impact anyone's ability to follow a simple common regulation.

I agree with your point that many families just want to catch something...anything...and potentially take it home to eat. However...under the current stock and annihilate stocking and fishing practices...their is little time for little Johnny or Susie to see a fish before they are depleted.

As for bait versus no bait...as an earlier post mentioned...the catch rates have increased significantly. Therefore...that is also not an issue.

As for Banff, BC and Alberta borders...jurisdictional boundaries are a fact of life and I have never heard that being a concern in any fashion.

Let's hope for a quality fishery...to fix your respected concerns.

Sun

[walking buffalo]

STATS/FACTS for in 2009/2010 http://www.srd.alberta.ca/Newsroom/MinistersOffice/documents/SRD-AnnualReport-2009-10.pdf

We had a F&W budget of $60.5 MM.
273,220 angler licences were sold
3.2 million trout were stocked in 259 different water bodies
52 million walleye stocked in Lac la Biche
100,705 MM in license revenue

I was interested in finding out what just the Fish portion of the budget is...but I could not find it.

I have not been able to find that breakdown. Provincial funding to Alberta fisheries also includes some of the money transferred to the ACA.

The future funding of Fish and Wildlife in Alberta does not look "Rosey". SRD is budgeting for a 10% DESCREASE in it's budget through 2013.

http://www.finance.alberta.ca/publications/budget/budget2010/sustainable-resource-dev.pdf

[gl2]

Anarchists love to remove rules. Fact is without rules rampant abuse would destroy what you want. Fisheries management has to be a changing game. Think about it. The playing field is constantly changing and evolving. We have fish stocks that are running low...fish like pike, walleye, grayling, cutthroat trout and sturgeon to name a few have had their stocks reach scary lows. Others like mountain whitefish and maybe even perch will be next on the list. We have an increasing number of anglers that challenge the system by putting ever increasing pressure on the stocks. The increasing anglers and taxing the waters nearest to large cities causing enhanced depletion problems.

All these changes in the playing field necessitate thinking differently when managing the few dollars available with the people that want to catch fish. The old saying that a bad day of fishing is better than a good day of work probably came from someone trying to lighten the fact...it is just getting that much harder to find any fish to catch.

So...to me that says we must look to outside the box for ideas. The last one was the "quality" fishery proposal at Bullshead that that strongly fought and opposed by many individuals...only to have been implemented any ways. The changes scared many...but now probably 99% of those that were opposed are not proponents. I suspect there would be a 10 fold increase in protests if they tried to put Bullshead back to the way it was before.

You are a bit short sighted IMHO by commenting on my small point of fish wastage and then figure education would fix an over harvest problem in Alberta. People that want to kill fish for the freeze invariably max their limit every time. If the limits are too high or the fish are limited in numbers then the fish leave. Simple mathematics of supply and demand.

You talk about education being different than implementing a quality fishery regulation...that argument has no merit as there is no additional cost to tax payers. The stocking stays the same as before but the fish are not harvested the day they are stocked. They are allowed to grow bigger. While they are growing bigger they get caught over and over again by the young and old alike. Then once they reach the target size...harvest can occur but at a sustainable rate. The biggest problem in fisheries management is provide high enough catch rates...fish caught per unit hour...to justify from F&W's point of view the expense of stocking...and from the anglers point of view the effort to try and catch them.

If you want to qualify this whole debate it comes down to few simple points.


1. Do you want to catch fish when you go fishing before it is fished out? If you say yes...then a quality fishery is the only one that maximizes this.

2. Do you want to harvest fish during the whole fishing season? Then the quality fishery is the only one that provides this.

3. Do you want to catch sporting sized fish? Then the quality fishery is the only one that provides this.


Time does not need to prove this as Bullshead already has.

Cheers

Sun




STATS/FACTS for in 2009/2010 http://www.srd.alberta.ca/Newsroom/MinistersOffice/documents/SRD-AnnualReport-2009-10.pdf

We had a F&W budget of $60.5 MM.
273,220 angler licences were sold
3.2 million trout were stocked in 259 different water bodies
52 million walleye stocked in Lac la Biche
100,705 MM in license revenue

I was interested in finding out what just the Fish portion of the budget is...but I could not find it.

who is saying anything about removing any rules?? maybe you dont understand where i am comming from....instead of making more rules that limit most people and some people ignore, we should look at the bigger picture and not just one one lake or area (is this really the next step in making alberta a better place to fish). you say these new changes in regulations wont cost anything?? who will enforce these new changes?? those poor people at fish and wildlife are already understaffed and cant enforce the rules we already have properly.so if a new rule that wont be enforced is your major concern in alberta then i think your being a little far sighted (imho).I am not saying i dont want better quality of fish in alberta but i like the spots where i take my small children and its easy to catch a bunch of small dumb fish and i equally like the spots where i can head out and have a chance at a large one.If you asked my daughter if she would rather catch a 20lb pike or a 1lb walley she would pick a walley everytime (she thinks they look cooler). so proof kids dont care about size, so if this is for them i still think the money is better spent elsewhere.

[Sundancefisher]

who is saying anything about removing any rules?? maybe you dont understand where i am comming from....instead of making more rules that limit most people and some people ignore, we should look at the bigger picture and not just one one lake or area (is this really the next step in making alberta a better place to fish). you say these new changes in regulations wont cost anything?? who will enforce these new changes?? those poor people at fish and wildlife are already understaffed and cant enforce the rules we already have properly.so if a new rule that wont be enforced is your major concern in alberta then i think your being a little far sighted (imho).I am not saying i dont want better quality of fish in alberta but i like the spots where i take my small children and its easy to catch a bunch of small dumb fish and i equally like the spots where i can head out and have a chance at a large one.If you asked my daughter if she would rather catch a 20lb pike or a 1lb walley she would pick a walley everytime (she thinks they look cooler). so proof kids dont care about size, so if this is for them i still think the money is better spent elsewhere.

I would have to go out on a limb...maybe someone else who is a F&W officer will attest to my thinking but...if there is already fishing activity taking place before and there will be fishing activity taking place after then therefore the net effect is an officer enforcing rules regardless of what they are and how many. One quick scan probably tells them if someone is fishing, using barbed hooks, has over their limit, has no fishing license...it will take no net time to also spot if the fish is under limit size. Therefore I don't believe this will cause any increased enforcement requirement over and above what is already in place. However I agree enforcement is currently lacking but a new regulation that is required to improve fishing for 99% of the public should still be implemented because it is the right thing to do as proved at Bullshead.

I also humbly don't believe your global comment that "most people and some people ignore" the current rules. I have fished for 35 years and I can attest that most people do follow the rules. Some don't and given the enforcement manpower concerns...it means the Report a Poacher is very important. So if you are seeing this that common place where you go you must take responsibility yourself and phone that number...otherwise IMHO...the poaching problem is also your fault for turning your back to the problem.

Your argument about wanting your kids to catch dumb fish and not larger fish still means you are in favor of the "quality" fishery. Simply put and I believe mentioned many times before...unless you take your kids to say Mt Lorette pond within the first few days of stocking...they will not catch any dumb trout because they have already been harvested. With a higher length limit size on a stocked lake...those dumb fish remain longer so your daughter has a chance to catch one. Plus I have fished Bullshead...and there are loads of dumb 12 - 20 inch trout to catch...and plenty over 20 inches.

Also my daughter and young son has caught loads of 10 - 14 inch rainbows. They bored quickly. Then they started catching 20 - 24 inch rainbows...and could not stop fishing. So there is proof...in the long run the kids want challenge and excitement reeling in a torpedo...not reeling in a small wet recently pellet fed sock.

[gl2]

I would have to go out on a limb...maybe someone else who is a F&W officer will attest to my thinking but...if there is already fishing activity taking place before and there will be fishing activity taking place after then the net effect is an officer enforcing rules regardless of what they are and how many. One quick scan probably tells them if someone is fishing, using barbed hooks, has over their limit, has no fishing license...it will take no net time to also spot if the fish is under limit. Therefore I don't believe this will cause any increased enforcement requires than is already in place. However I agree enforcement is currently lacking but a new regulation that is required to improve fishing for 99% of the public should still be implemented because it is the right thing to do as proved at Bullshead.

I also humbly don't believe your global comment that "most people and some people ignore". I have fished for 35 years and I can attest that most people do follow the rules. Some don't and given the enforcement manpower concerns...it means the Report a Poacher is very important. So if you are seeing this that common place where you go you must take responsibility yourself and phone that number...otherwise IMHO...the poaching problem is also your fault for turning your bad to the problem.

Your argument about wanting your kids to catch dumb fish and not larger fish still means you are in favor of the "quality" fishery. Simply put and I believe mentioned many times before...unless you take your kids to say Mt Lorette pond within the first few days of stocking...they will not catch any dumb trout because they have already been harvested. With a higher length limit size on a stocked lake...those dumb fish remain longer so your daughter has a chance to catch one. Plus I have fished Bullshead...and there are loads of dumb 12 - 20 inch trout to catch...and plenty over 20 inches.

Also my daughter and young son has caught loads of 10 - 14 inch rainbows. They bored quickly. Then they started catching 20 - 24 inch rainbows...and could not stop fishing. So there is proof...in the long run the kids want challenge and excitement reeling in a torpedo...not reeling in a small wet sock.


i am apologize i dont know what i am talking about.... if your kids want bigger but fewer fish then they should get them (my kids can go somewhere else). and poaching is my fault cause i try to teach people but i aint gonna follow him to his car get his plate number drive to get cell reception and call in the middle of my day cause they cant afford to hire enough people. and there are lots of good quality places to fish in this province and if you cant find any then i guess its your problem. leave family places alone.... lmfao

[Sundancefisher]

i am apologize i dont know what i am talking about.... if your kids want bigger but fewer fish then they should get them (my kids can go somewhere else). and poaching is my fault cause i try to teach people but i aint gonna follow him to his car get his plate number drive to get cell reception and call in the middle of my day cause they cant afford to hire enough people. and there are lots of good quality places to fish in this province and if you cant find any then i guess its your problem. leave family places alone.... lmfao

Maybe the confusion lies with your assumption that the quality fishing regulations mean fewer trout to catch. That is not true. You actually catch loads more fish...and not all are huge...many are still in the 12 to 19.9 inch range. Harvest occurs after 20 inches of which the meals is tons more than the equivalent tiny stockers most seems to be eating. If you are concerned about losing meat for the freezer...please don't be. Evidence and facts show that you will actually increase the amount of fish weight you get to harvest.

As for poaching...record the activity in a journal (location, time of day, illegal activity, person descriptions etc.) ...if you can sneak a photo of them or record vehicle information even better. Then send or phone the information to F&W via the Report a Poacher number or direct conversation with an officer. Failure to do any of this...means they never know it is happening. You can complain about it all you want...and maybe an F&W Officer on line can comment...but we all know their is not a lot of them...we all know the Province is huge...all I am saying is tell them where the problem spots are and I know they WILL do something about it.

They have uniformed guys visit and they will also send in non uniformed officers in on a sting. So by all means...DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. IMHO. One thing that really gets my goat...and I apologize in advance cause you triggered it is people that complain about a problem...use it for an excuse for ignoring responsibility and never do anything about it. We must all take responsibility and be proactive in protection our fishing resources...which includes helping with enforcement and supporting good regulations. Apparently you fish in "family places" and see loads of poaching activity. Maybe together we can all fix it and I would love to help. Please post in details the locations and descriptions of the problems. They are not secret stocked lakes so there is no concern telling us but together as a forum population we can help stop that behavior so there is more fish for your kids to have fun catching.

I get a sense from your language in the post that you are trying to encourage better fishing behavior through leading by example and I commend you for that. I really value our debate here...I can tell you are a passionate fisherman and we more like you that care to participate in debate.

Cheers

Sun

[chubbdarter]

race ahead to year 2013

We the leg humpers of stelfox have after extensive studies have discovered the killing of only 20inch plus fish has completely negated any spawning. therefore without any notice we will implement one of two new regulations.
1- flyfish only/ catch and release
2- allow someone to dump a pail of perch in the lake so there is something to catch.

[GaryF]

So I guess my question to all the ppl that seem to be concerned with kids catching fish is would a statement like "we need to put that one back sweetie, its still a baby" make your child go balistic because they can't keep it? Do you plant a garden and let your kids start pulling the goods as soon as some green pops out of the ground? Or do you tell them to wait until they are ready to be picked? Its the same logic, let the fish grow so you can harvest a decent sized fish to eat. Children are not going to be upset about putting a fish back on their own, the adult is the one that will say its bad and stupid.

I see no problem with what some ppl are trying to do to create a better quality fishery(read more fish). Without these ppl being around we would have squat to fish because there are some ppl out there that believe they have to keep everything they catch(yes I have seen it happen before). Steps like this make sure that you at least have the chance to catch something. Without regs like this we would eventually be casting into a swimming pool. And if you don't think it can happen google Nile Perch and see what no regs does for a fishery.

Congrats to those stepping up, I know well what its like sticking your neck out for the majority.

[fish99]

where are these fish to spawn in the upper lake the bilogust jim stilfox toke use years ago before the bulls were stocked that there is no place for them to spawn.

[gl2]

So I guess my question to all the ppl that seem to be concerned with kids catching fish is would a statement like "we need to put that one back sweetie, its still a baby" make your child go balistic because they can't keep it? Do you plant a garden and let your kids start pulling the goods as soon as some green pops out of the ground? Or do you tell them to wait until they are ready to be picked? Its the same logic, let the fish grow so you can harvest a decent sized fish to eat. Children are not going to be upset about putting a fish back on their own, the adult is the one that will say its bad and stupid.

I see no problem with what some ppl are trying to do to create a better quality fishery(read more fish). Without these ppl being around we would have squat to fish because there are some ppl out there that believe they have to keep everything they catch(yes I have seen it happen before). Steps like this make sure that you at least have the chance to catch something. Without regs like this we would eventually be casting into a swimming pool. And if you don't think it can happen google Nile Perch and see what no regs does for a fishery.

Congrats to those stepping up, I know well what its like sticking your neck out for the majority.

people are not saying they dont want a better quality fishery, nor is anyone saying that you should keep everything you catch. what i am concerned about is that is this the right thing to do? who are we willing to hurt?(families), and if this will even work. what is the time frame for the reward of these changes? is this really the next step for our fisheries? cause i know of a few places that could probably use some help out too.(why does k lakes take priority) and if nobody is supposed to ask then why put it up on a forum at all? i am not going to support something without all the facts and info..who did the research and if its being done the right way.

[goldscud]

Chubdarter, there is presently no protection for spawner sized rainbows. I don't see why the regulation change would cause them to decrease at a rate any faster than today.

fish99, you are right about lack of spawning habitat of the Upper lake. There is a plan in the works to create a spawning area for the Cutthroats at one of the creek mouths in the Upper lake. This would help to decrease the stocking rate/cost in the long run.

Tosh, the only negative I can see from your point of view is that a child could not kill a fish from Kan lakes under 50cm. But, with the regulation change, there should be a lot more small fish available to catch. I would think the entertainment value of catching lots of fish (some under 50cm and some over) would excite most kids. I guess you could ask the child if they wanted to kill some fish or not...then decide what stocked pond to go to.

Fish and Wildlife has a lot of requests to provide some more quality trout lakes in southern Alberta. There is a list of qualifications that a lake needs to have in order for it to be considered for a regulation change. Kan lakes meet a lot of those qualifications. With a limited number of lakes in Alberta that could be used for trout, Fish and Wildlife is screening lake ideas to try and meet a growing demand for higher quality lakes.

[fish99]

Will the fish run short of food and be stunted like elbow lake or the walleye in pigeon lake from over stocking

[goldscud]

I doubt the spawning success in the Upper lake would ever be like the Brookies in Elbow lake. In addition, the Upper lake is a huge body of water in comparison to Elbow lake. If at some time in the future, the growth rates in the Upper lake look like they are decreasing radically, the stocking rate can be decreased to accommodate it, or the harvest rate can be increased to lower the number of mouths to feed in the lake.

[chubbdarter]

sorry my mistake. i get from this proposal meat fisherman will have no choice but to bonk larger potential spawn stock

[madatter]

sorry my mistake. i get from this proposal meat fisherman will have no choice but to bonk larger potential spawn stock

You always have a choice......
Fishing is a recreational activity,not a run to the grocery store.:snapoutofit:
If all you are after is a meal when fishing then it would far cheaper for you in end to head to the local Safeway.

[Logan]

The fact of this post is this, two lakes with changed size restrictions, two lakes which Im sure most people on this forum dont frequent more than 3-5 times a year and Id be amazed if they do that much. I fish Lower K almost exclusively in the winter?? Why you ask??

Because of this.... Quality Fishing!
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/LoganLundy/P4060610.jpg

If your telling me that these proposed changes could open up the chances of me catching Rainbows or Cutts this size on what could be a half frequent basis at two lakes within 90 mins of my house. Good, wait actually thats GREAT. Alberta has enough put & take lakes that changes to these 2 should not effect anyone in some earth changing manner. If you don't like the proposed changes then there are plenty of other options within the same driving distance from your home.

I understand that some people don't like change, hell I don't like it. I remember when Lower K switched to a Bait Ban and when Alberta protected Bull Trout and I vowed I would never fish it again and that they were robbing me of a fishing experience well I can now tell you that without those changes my current favorite place to fish would not exist. Before you jump all over the change itself think of the positive outcome that may come from said changes and if your doubting how implemented restrictions will benefit you then take a day and head off to a place like Bullhead and hook into a 50cm+ Rainbow remember how great it was and think of the possibility of having more places to experience that.

[FOTW]

The fact of this post is this, two lakes with changed size restrictions, two lakes which Im sure most people on this forum dont frequent more than 3-5 times a year and Id be amazed if they do that much. I fish Lower K almost exclusively in the winter?? Why you ask??

Because of this.... Quality Fishing!
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/LoganLundy/P4060610.jpg

If your telling me that these proposed changes could open up the chances of me catching Rainbows or Cutts this size on what could be a half frequent basis at two lakes within 90 mins of my house. Good, wait actually thats GREAT. Alberta has enough put & take lakes that changes to these 2 should not effect anyone in some earth changing manner. If you don't like the proposed changes then there are plenty of other options within the same driving distance from your home.

I understand that some people don't like change, hell I don't like it. I remember when Lower K switched to a Bait Ban and when Alberta protected Bull Trout and I vowed I would never fish it again and that they were robbing me of a fishing experience well I can now tell you that without those changes my current favorite place to fish would not exist. Before you jump all over the change itself think of the positive outcome that may come from said changes and if your doubting how implemented restrictions will benefit you then take a day and head off to a place like Bullhead and hook into a 50cm+ Rainbow remember how great it was and think of the possibility of having more places to experience that.

Completely off topic, But I was told it is not safe at any time to ice fish Lower K. Apparently they randomly let water out with no warnings causing a huge gap between the ice and water, some times Ice-gap-ice-water.

Have you seen anything like that?

That is a sweet fish btw.

[chubbdarter]

thats a cute little bull trout
congrats

[Sundancefisher]

people are not saying they dont want a better quality fishery, nor is anyone saying that you should keep everything you catch. what i am concerned about is that is this the right thing to do? who are we willing to hurt?(families), and if this will even work. what is the time frame for the reward of these changes? is this really the next step for our fisheries? cause i know of a few places that could probably use some help out too.(why does k lakes take priority) and if nobody is supposed to ask then why put it up on a forum at all? i am not going to support something without all the facts and info..who did the research and if its being done the right way.

Tosh...the facts have been posted.

Fact...Catch rates from Kananaskis Lakes for instance. It shows 94% of all trout stocked get harvested in the year they are stocked. That is at 12 inches. That means instant depletion of the resource upon initial stocking.

Fact...it will work...the size classes in the lake now show great growth

Fact...the exact same regulation for Bullshead Lake was a massive success. All negative opinions were shot down by the successful outcome of this first Quality Fishery at Bullshead.

Fact...there is nothing...no proof...no examples nothing that has been said to show there is any harm to families. To me that is purely an inflammatory comment without merit. Not even sure where your logic is on that. I know the rhetoric keeps jumping back to wanting to catch fish...but again... the facts show the implementation of a quality fishery will improve this versus leaving it the same mess it is currently in. Nobody likes fishing towards the middle to the end of the season cause most trout were already caught.

Fact...this is actually a cost effective method to let mother nature grow trout while keeping tons of trout available to be caught. Upon mother nature (versus tax payer supported hatcheries feeding trout) growing 20 inch trout...these significantly larger fish will provide superior table fare to anyone wishing to harvest one.

Fact...there is no cost increase to regulate. It is just a regulation...nothing more...nothing less. It will be managed just like catch limits, size limits, bait restrictions etc.

Fact...one nice 20 + inch rainbow is significantly larger in weight to 3 - 12 inch stocked rainbows.

Fact...Alberta Fisheries biologists are involved and they are the educated and experienced ones that will affirm this makes sense prior to implementation. Nothing we demand will make it happen. We are not a strong enough nor vocal enough political power block for any politician to care.

Fact...the reason why this is happening for Kananaskis Lakes is for the same simple reason it happened at Bullshead. Some very hard working fishermen like yourselves saw a place to make a change for the better and have started to work hard to try and make the change happen. Your interest in other areas is admirable. I would strongly suggest YOU take the initiative and try and gather support and interest to do something about it. I would suggest talking first to other fishermen to see what the level of support is to ensure it is a common sense and well thought out idea...then approach F&W and ask for feedback and suggestions. Then start doing the hard work. Many people don't realize how much volunteer work and mental and physical effort it is to try and make a difference. These "proactive" folks should be commended!

Cheers

Sun

[Logan]

Completely off topic, But I was told it is not safe at any time to ice fish Lower K. Apparently they randomly let water out with no warnings causing a huge gap between the ice and water, some times Ice-gap-ice-water.

Have you seen anything like that?

That is a sweet fish btw.

The ice has only been an issue one time for us there, when they drop the water level and the shore line ice drops and breaks sometimes the water will rise through the cracks but you can see when its not going to be safe on the ice. Only time I had any issue was last year in mid March when we got a pretty warm spell and the shore around the south side opened up and we couldn't get on but the opposite end of the lake was still perfectly safe. As got a "gap" between the ice and the water never ever seen anything like that there or anywhere.


thats a cute little bull trout
congrats

Thanks but which one???
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/LoganLundy/PC150198.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/LoganLundy/PC140190.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/LoganLundy/P2020257.jpg
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/LoganLundy/P2020253.jpg

and before ANYONE jumps on me, all those fish were released in a very timely manner and any blood you see is from their mouths, I have never had anything but a mouth hook from any of the fish there.

[Sundancefisher]

race ahead to year 2013

We the leg humpers of stelfox have after extensive studies have discovered the killing of only 20inch plus fish has completely negated any spawning. therefore without any notice we will implement one of two new regulations.
1- flyfish only/ catch and release
2- allow someone to dump a pail of perch in the lake so there is something to catch.

Thanks chubdarter.

I can now guess who you are and what your angle is based upon your character as seen in the disparaging remarks of what is probably the most caring and hard working biologist in the Province.

I can tell based upon this post that you neither care about the facts nor wish to discuss pros versus cons. Your ambiguous attempts to cause others to go off the deep end from silly posts of yours will not work as trolling is quickly becoming a boring past time to respond to.

I have yet to see any actual thought put into your remarks and I am sorry to have assumed otherwise.

Clearly since you feel the argument is lost as you are incapable of providing value to the conversation you must attempt to ruin it like a child through insults etc.

Therefore I will use your own language of sorts. I will no longer respond to your posts as they are not worthy of any fair and honest debating.

Good luck

Sun

[chubbdarter]

The ice has only been an issue one time for us there, when they drop the water level and the shore line ice drops and breaks sometimes the water will rise through the cracks but you can see when its not going to be safe on the ice. Only time I had any issue was last year in mid March when we got a pretty warm spell and the shore around the south side opened up and we couldn't get on but the opposite end of the lake was still perfectly safe. As got a "gap" between the ice and the water never ever seen anything like that there or anywhere.




Thanks but which one???
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/LoganLundy/PC150198.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/LoganLundy/PC140190.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/LoganLundy/P2020257.jpg
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/LoganLundy/P2020253.jpg

and before ANYONE jumps on me, all those fish were released in a very timely manner and any blood you see is from their mouths, I have never had anything but a mouth hook from any of the fish there.


all beautiful fish....congrats again

[canadagrown]

all beautiful fish....congrats again

What an idiot

[chubbdarter]

[QUOTE=canadagrown;777637]What an idiot[/QUOTE

fish on!!!!!!!!!!!!
thank you CG

[Sundancefisher]

Will the fish run short of food and be stunted like elbow lake or the walleye in pigeon lake from over stocking

That is an excellent question. In fact Bullshead Lake has learned that stocking rates as expected plays into growth rates. They will have to monitor this and stock the rates appropriately in order to maximize growth versus catch rates. They have some data on growth rates for sure already and will utilize it in their management decisions.

Like any science...they adjust procedures according available data. They have been stocking these Kananaskis lakes for years in the past and again recently.

Again...excellent question as this is a primary factor in selecting stocking densities.

Cheers

Sun

[Sundancefisher]

Completely off topic, But I was told it is not safe at any time to ice fish Lower K. Apparently they randomly let water out with no warnings causing a huge gap between the ice and water, some times Ice-gap-ice-water.

Have you seen anything like that?

That is a sweet fish btw.

yes it is off topic...but safety is more important. Reservoirs that fluctuate in water height during the winter should never ever be driven on. Air pockets form near shore as the ice drops. Currents can play havoc on ice thickness especially near inflows and outflows.

I broke through once at Chain Lakes walking up the shore... Someone in a quad, snowmobile or truck would of been seriously hurt.

Additionally...increased ice cracks form that can be fairly wide depending upon the time of year...speed at which the water is dropping, wind, air temperature etc.

Be very cautious...carry a throw rope...walk apart. Drill holes carefully... Test, test, test the ice if you are unsure. If Lake Sundance in Calgary can have 10-14 inches of ice last weekend...yet someone falls through still in one localized spot...any lake will have the same chance. Springs can also well up in mountain lakes.

[gl2]

Tosh...the facts have been posted.

Fact...Catch rates from Kananaskis Lakes for instance. It shows 94% of all trout stocked get harvested in the year they are stocked. That is at 12 inches. That means instant depletion of the resource upon initial stocking.

Fact...it will work...the size classes in the lake now show great growth

Fact...the exact same regulation for Bullshead Lake was a massive success. All negative opinions were shot down by the successful outcome of this first Quality Fishery at Bullshead.

Fact...there is nothing...no proof...no examples nothing that has been said to show there is any harm to families. To me that is purely an inflammatory comment without merit. Not even sure where your logic is on that. I know the rhetoric keeps jumping back to wanting to catch fish...but again... the facts show the implementation of a quality fishery will improve this versus leaving it the same mess it is currently in. Nobody likes fishing towards the middle to the end of the season cause most trout were already caught.

Fact...this is actually a cost effective method to let mother nature grow trout while keeping tons of trout available to be caught. Upon mother nature (versus tax payer supported hatcheries feeding trout) growing 20 inch trout...these significantly larger fish will provide superior table fare to anyone wishing to harvest one.

Fact...there is no cost increase to regulate. It is just a regulation...nothing more...nothing less. It will be managed just like catch limits, size limits, bait restrictions etc.

Fact...one nice 20 + inch rainbow is significantly larger in weight to 3 - 12 inch stocked rainbows.

Fact...Alberta Fisheries biologists are involved and they are the educated and experienced ones that will affirm this makes sense prior to implementation. Nothing we demand will make it happen. We are not a strong enough nor vocal enough political power block for any politician to care.

Fact...the reason why this is happening for Kananaskis Lakes is for the same simple reason it happened at Bullshead. Some very hard working fishermen like yourselves saw a place to make a change for the better and have started to work hard to try and make the change happen. Your interest in other areas is admirable. I would strongly suggest YOU take the initiative and try and gather support and interest to do something about it. I would suggest talking first to other fishermen to see what the level of support is to ensure it is a common sense and well thought out idea...then approach F&W and ask for feedback and suggestions. Then start doing the hard work. Many people don't realize how much volunteer work and mental and physical effort it is to try and make a difference. These "proactive" folks should be commended!

Cheers

Sun

This is a very good post. signed.

[gl2]

What an idiot

where did that mod button go..........

[FOTW]

That is an excellent question. In fact Bullshead Lake has learned that stocking rates as expected plays into growth rates. They will have to monitor this and stock the rates appropriately in order to maximize growth versus catch rates. They have some data on growth rates for sure already and will utilize it in their management decisions.

Like any science...they adjust procedures according available data. They have been stocking these Kananaskis lakes for years in the past and again recently.

Again...excellent question as this is a primary factor in selecting stocking densities.

Cheers

Sun

Thank you. After seeing those Bull trout, I may have to drive up there in February and try my luck. sign0068

[Sundancefisher]

Bump... We can still use more signatures everyone...please pass it along.

Sun

[pikester]

Bump... We can still use more signatures everyone...please pass it along.

Sun

Probably going to sign but still have some interest in a response to the question of water level fluctuation affecting the productivity of the littoral zone. How much of a limiting factor to the overall potential of the fishery is there or will there be based on this situation? Surely it would have a tremendous influence on the total carrying capacity of a trophy sized population of fish.

Also to sidetrack a little more from the OP, has anyone discussed the possibity of stocking Bulls in Elbow to whittle down the brookie population a little while offering another opportunity at a quality Bull trout fishery in an easily accessible & super scenic location?

[goldscud]

One thing to consider concerning the littoral zone and productivity in these reservoirs is that there is a large Mysis shrimp population. Once the juvenile Bulls and rainbows migrate to the Lower lake from the creek, their growth rate rapidly increases. I believe the juvs are about 6" at 3 years of age and then they start rapidly growing in the lake. Stomach contents that I saw from Bull trout in the Lower lake were almost totally shrimp. Once the fish get bigger they can add sucker minnows to their diet.
There has been a request to stabilize water levels for a long time. I'm not sure it is a priority for the power company. A stable littoral zone would surely help, but the Mysis shrimp add a ton of fat/protein to the equation.

[smitty9]

Tosh...the facts have been posted.

Fact...Catch rates from Kananaskis Lakes for instance. It shows 94% of all trout stocked get harvested in the year they are stocked. That is at 12 inches. That means instant depletion of the resource upon initial stocking.

Fact...it will work...the size classes in the lake now show great growth

Fact...the exact same regulation for Bullshead Lake was a massive success. All negative opinions were shot down by the successful outcome of this first Quality Fishery at Bullshead.

Fact...there is nothing...no proof...no examples nothing that has been said to show there is any harm to families. To me that is purely an inflammatory comment without merit. Not even sure where your logic is on that. I know the rhetoric keeps jumping back to wanting to catch fish...but again... the facts show the implementation of a quality fishery will improve this versus leaving it the same mess it is currently in. Nobody likes fishing towards the middle to the end of the season cause most trout were already caught.

Fact...this is actually a cost effective method to let mother nature grow trout while keeping tons of trout available to be caught. Upon mother nature (versus tax payer supported hatcheries feeding trout) growing 20 inch trout...these significantly larger fish will provide superior table fare to anyone wishing to harvest one.

Fact...there is no cost increase to regulate. It is just a regulation...nothing more...nothing less. It will be managed just like catch limits, size limits, bait restrictions etc.

Fact...one nice 20 + inch rainbow is significantly larger in weight to 3 - 12 inch stocked rainbows.

Fact...Alberta Fisheries biologists are involved and they are the educated and experienced ones that will affirm this makes sense prior to implementation. Nothing we demand will make it happen. We are not a strong enough nor vocal enough political power block for any politician to care.

Fact...the reason why this is happening for Kananaskis Lakes is for the same simple reason it happened at Bullshead. Some very hard working fishermen like yourselves saw a place to make a change for the better and have started to work hard to try and make the change happen. Your interest in other areas is admirable. I would strongly suggest YOU take the initiative and try and gather support and interest to do something about it. I would suggest talking first to other fishermen to see what the level of support is to ensure it is a common sense and well thought out idea...then approach F&W and ask for feedback and suggestions. Then start doing the hard work. Many people don't realize how much volunteer work and mental and physical effort it is to try and make a difference. These "proactive" folks should be commended!

Cheers

Sun

Hey Sun:

All great points. Full stop.

Never underestimate the capacity for people to dig their heels in and stuff their hands into their ears, refusing to listen to anything reasonable.

To your points I'll add:
1. There was indeed a proposal to stabilize the lakes because I had heard that the power company was going to decommission the plant. Can you imagine the double win benefit of having those lakes' productivity cranked up PLUS a viable trout fishery in the Kananaskis river.

2. I think some of the "anti's" here have lost sight of a huge point - POTENTIAL. These lakes are not the size of a couple of farm dugouts; they are one of AB's biggest trout stillwaters, have the capacity to grow 10+ lb trout, and yet, some of the angling community just want these massive lakes to produce 5 a day limits of 12" stockers. Its like asking Sidney Crosby to play in the East Coast League; what a waste!

3. Here's a contoversial point; I'd argue kids and older folks and disabled anglers are just as much of a special interest group as the flyfishing or special regs community. Read that carefully; its actually a neutral statement. I am for MORE accessible waters to those aformentioned groups, just think that the K-lakes can serve everyone.

4. An argument for meat is a complete epic fail on the logic side of things. Takes my breath away. Go to Safeway. We fish because its enjoyable. Those that fish purely 100% for food, well, whatever, that's bloody expensive meat! I'm not against catch and keep, in fact I've ****ed off more than few flyfishers on other forums defending put and take fisheries, but again, I repeat, its a massive waste of potential. Plus, the nail in the coffin, its not lake these regs are proposing to ban harvest - just delay it.

5. I'll also argue citing the example of Bullshead that having such a productive fishery in such beautiful country so close to Calgary gives people options and will increase the usuage, and take the pressure off hard hit rivers, other smaller lakes, and even other delayed harvest fisheries like Bullshead.

6. Some thoughtful people here, especially that one previous poster, completely nailed it when he said the adults would be the problem, not the kids. I have taught lots of kids to flyfish from day 1, no bait, and they have loved it. And not one of them has ever had a problem with catch and release.


Anyways, I am signing the petition, but it should also have a parallel petition for the company asking them to stabilize the lake levels and to leave the Kananaskis river alone. (Perhaps a project for me).

Smitty

[spinerfisher]

i am apologize i dont know what i am talking about.... if your kids want bigger but fewer fish then they should get them (my kids can go somewhere else). and poaching is my fault cause i try to teach people but i aint gonna follow him to his car get his plate number drive to get cell reception and call in the middle of my day cause they cant afford to hire enough people. and there are lots of good quality places to fish in this province and if you cant find any then i guess its your problem. leave family places alone.... lmfao



buddy you need to get a life!!!::sign0176::sign0176:

You probably are a poacher yourself, disgusting people!!

[Woolly Bugger]

There were a lot of guys that thought the same thing as you when the Bullshead regulation change was proposed.

One thing you have to take into account is that a 12 inch rainbow has far less meat than a 22 inch rainbow. A 22 inch rainbow probably has more meat than 5 - 12 inch rainbows or more. So I would like you to consider these points such once the fish sizes catch up to the regulations that you will benefit 2 fold. Firstly you will get to keep one large rainbow that will feed a family...secondly you will have a lot more fun fighting a larger size class of trout.

Quality fishery does not mean catch and release fishery. It just means when you catch a fish it is big enough to give you a fight.

I would also say that the times are gone when you could justify the time to fish and buy gas versus the pounds of fish returned home. There are just too many people in Alberta fishing and to be fair to your fellow anglers...the resource can not justify everyone keeping their limits every time they go out. You seem to be dissing the catch and release folks...but if not for them, your personal limits would probably drop to 10% of where they are at now. So remember IMHO...as a fishing community, we are all working together to make this a great "recreational" activity...and not purely a grocery shopping trip.

Cheers

Sun

Well said Sun.

[Woolly Bugger]

Signed.

[Sundancefisher]

Probably going to sign but still have some interest in a response to the question of water level fluctuation affecting the productivity of the littoral zone. How much of a limiting factor to the overall potential of the fishery is there or will there be based on this situation? Surely it would have a tremendous influence on the total carrying capacity of a trophy sized population of fish.

Also to sidetrack a little more from the OP, has anyone discussed the possibity of stocking Bulls in Elbow to whittle down the brookie population a little while offering another opportunity at a quality Bull trout fishery in an easily accessible & super scenic location?

Hi pikester...

I was away and did not post but I see goldscud beat me to it. The growth rates are good in this lake and that should not change. Catch rates will increase due to delayed harvest...so yearly stocking rates need not be as high. Mysis shrimp are a great growth food. It is amazing that even with high water fluctuations that there is significant food to grow trout big. Once we get this going we have no wheres else to go but growing bigger and bigger trout in a fabulous location.

Sun

[gl2]

buddy you need to get a life!!!::sign0176::sign0176:

You probably are a poacher yourself, disgusting people!!

post edited...good point gary.

Spinerfisher, thank you for your informative post.

[GaryF]

Can we keep this to the topic at hand pls, take it to PM's if you need to. Lots of great information here, would hate to see it locked out and forgotten.

[pikester]

One thing to consider concerning the littoral zone and productivity in these reservoirs is that there is a large Mysis shrimp population. Once the juvenile Bulls and rainbows migrate to the Lower lake from the creek, their growth rate rapidly increases. I believe the juvs are about 6" at 3 years of age and then they start rapidly growing in the lake. Stomach contents that I saw from Bull trout in the Lower lake were almost totally shrimp. Once the fish get bigger they can add sucker minnows to their diet.
There has been a request to stabilize water levels for a long time. I'm not sure it is a priority for the power company. A stable littoral zone would surely help, but the Mysis shrimp add a ton of fat/protein to the equation.

Hi pikester...

I was away and did not post but I see goldscud beat me to it. The growth rates are good in this lake and that should not change. Catch rates will increase due to delayed harvest...so yearly stocking rates need not be as high. Mysis shrimp are a great growth food. It is amazing that even with high water fluctuations that there is significant food to grow trout big. Once we get this going we have no wheres else to go but growing bigger and bigger trout in a fabulous location.

Sun

Thanks for the info guys, I wasnt aware of the high shrimp population & how important it was to the fish in those lakes!

[Sundancefisher]

Thanks for the info guys, I wasnt aware of the high shrimp population & how important it was to the fish in those lakes!

http://www.simplydiscus.com/library/foods_nutritions/diet_basics/mysis_shrimps.shtml

As the trout grow bigger...they target the shrimp more and more. At the stocking target size class...they should effectively start predating on the shrimp.

As the shrimp are already established...and they are introduced...increasing the predation on them is not a bad thing at all. Kind of a win/win in this instance.

[chubbdarter]

that tiny little shrimp nearly killed my favorite lake in the world. i trust all the appropriate studies have been done. im just saying

[goldscud]

Yes Chubdarter, it is a shame that the Mysis introduction into Kootenay lake caused such a problem for the Kokanee population. It seems man tends to cause more problems than benefits when doing species introductions.
Mysis were added to the Kananaskis lakes in 1967 (I believe they actually got them from Kootenay lake). Unlike the Kokanee, the bulls and rainbows in Lower Kan lake seem to be making good use of the these shrimp. Stomach samples of trout show a very high percentage of Mysis shrimp.
Kootenay lake Mysis shrimp came from Waterton. Interesting how these shrimp have been moved around. They were then transplanted from Upper Kan into Spray lake as well.
It's too bad the competition for resources by the Kokanee and Mysis wasn't discovered until it was too lake. Hopefully your beloved Gerrards will respond to the fertilization programs being used to boost the Kokanee populations.

[chubbdarter]

it was a indirect cause and effect
the mysis in simple terms ate the lake of all plankton and micro organism which sterilized the lake.
the koot has since recovered nicely from that issue and the exporting of eggs from lardeau

[Tony_S]

Signed. Great Idea!

[Sundancefisher]

Great Tony!

One signature at a time and together we can make our fishery IN ALBERTA better. Kind of exciting.

Once this works hopefully other members on the board will have new excellent ideas to improve our fisheries.

Let's not accept the status quo but rather think big...think quality fishery with lots of fish to catch all year long.

Cheers

Sun

[Heron]

bump 128? Perhaps this thread should be pinned.

I fully support this and would support a complete shift accross the province for more of these fisheries.

One day I sat down with Barry`s mag and tried to count the trout fisheries that I could reasonably (or unreasonably) drive to in a day from Sherwood Park. The number was roughly 35. 1 or perhaps 2 of those have special regs. To me that is ridiculous. The area just west of Edmonton is a good example. Spring, Star, Chickakoo, Sauer, East Pit, what use to be Hasse, Eden and of course Muir are all within a fairly short drive of each other. Why is only 1 of these special regs?

P.S. I don`t see very many children and elderly at these waters and in my opinion you would see more grandparents with there grandchildren at higher quality fisheries. Wouldn`t that be a nice thing.

[ULTRAlite]

Signed - Full support for creating quality fisheries!

[Tungsten,]

Signed, only 137,as i type this theres 671 users online.Come on people,parents and grand parents.

There not asking for much here just a simple regulation change.If not for you then do it for your kids.

[Sundancefisher]

I have had a number of PM's that state they love the new reg idea but since they don't fish there they don't feel they should vote.

To all of you I say...VOTE! If this fishery improves as much as Bullshead...then I doubt you will be able to stay away. You will fish it and you will get great value for your time in fishing in a beautiful location with a significantly higher chance of catching fish.

So by all means...don't delay!

Sign...sign...sign! :test:

Cheers

Sun

[Sundancefisher]

bump...

154 signatures... Keep it up folks and we can finally say we can function as a lobby group!

Sun

[aulrich]

159.

Pesonally I am not a big fan of minimum only size limits, I have seen too many lunkers not make it to the taxidermist. I rather see a slot limit to protect the real big ones too.

I love stocked trout to go to a tag system as well 2$ a tag 10 for the year. I could see that for any fish to tell you the truth. Though I am of the beleif that pure C&R will not always produce the biggest fish, but that depends on the water.

[HunterDave]

I'll be the first to admit that I know very little about this subject and I haven't taken the time to read through the entire thread yet.

I'm from out east where there is an unwritten rule that you release the big spawner fish and keep the smaller eating sized ones if you want a meal. Why only keep the big spawners. To me it seems a little counter-productive and I don't understand the logic behind it.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a maximum size limit that you can keep? If you catch a big one then take a picture of it if you need to but let it go so it can spawn a thousand more trout to catch. To me, these aren't the size of fish that you want to be taking out of a lake if you want to have a healthy population of fish in it. If everyone did that then there would always be large fish in the lake and plenty of eater size for the folks that don't think that size matters. Plenty of fish would live long enough to grow to the maximum size and keep the cycle going.

Is my logic flawed and what am I missing here?:confused:

[Heron]

I am not likely to fish this lake at all but I think it is a step toward getting more special regulation fisheries.

[Sundancefisher]

I'll be the first to admit that I know very little about this subject and I haven't taken the time to read through the entire thread yet.

I'm from out east where there is an unwritten rule that you release the big spawner fish and keep the smaller eating sized ones if you want a meal. Why only keep the big spawners. To me it seems a little counter-productive and I don't understand the logic behind it.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a maximum size limit that you can keep? If you catch a big one then take a picture of it if you need to but let it go so it can spawn a thousand more trout to catch. To me, these aren't the size of fish that you want to be taking out of a lake if you want to have a healthy population of fish in it. If everyone did that then there would always be large fish in the lake and plenty of eater size for the folks that don't think that size matters. Plenty of fish would live long enough to grow to the maximum size and keep the cycle going.

Is my logic flawed and what am I missing here?:confused:

I think your logic is sound but not necessarily applicable to a put and take lake like this. While there is some spawning currently and an expectation of future spawning...it would not be significant enough IMHO for stock replacement. Therefore any natural spawning would only help to offset some stocking costs. So in this particular lake we are not trying to protect a natural spawning population nor is the regulations designed to create a trophy lake. There regulations are basically designed to prevent 94% of the 12 inch stocked rainbows to be harvested soon after stocking. If they are allowed to grow...and be caught for a few years after stocking...until they reach 20 inches...then when harvested they are of a significant size while the lake retains an ample number of trout to catch all season.

Think of this lake as a place to take the kids to almost guarantee they can catch something...whether they have to put it back or not based upon the 20 inch rule. While no guarantees to catch a fish...you are guaranteed that all fish have not been harvested shortly after stocking.

Plus the recreational advantage of having more and larger fish makes for an exciting day on the water when they are biting!

Cheers

Sun

Link to the petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/dekkbeed/petition.html

[HunterDave]

I'm still not sure that I understand the logic. There seems to be a different perception of what a quality fishery means. The supporters of this petition interpret it as being able to catch bigger fish while people opposed to it see it as being able to go out and catch fish.

From a hunter's perspective, wouldn't putting size restrictions for fish in the lake be similar to to putting a size restriction on whitetail bucks in a particular wmu? Let's say in wmu xxx a petition was started to limit the size of a buck that you could shoot to a 4x4 or bigger only. The smaller bucks would make it through the season to grow larger antlers and hunters in that wmu would have a better chance to shoot bigger bucks. But what about the people that don't care about the antler size and only want to put some meat in the freezer to eat? Would something like that be beneficial to all Alberta hunters or just the trophy hunters?

The biggest difference between the two that I know is that the smaller bucks can still breed the does while only the bigger trout can spawn.

Right now, based on what I've read and understand about the petition, I won't sign it. It may be something that would benefit a minority of trophy fishermen but not the majority of Alberta anglers.

[Okotokian]

I mistakenly put this on probably the wrong thread before. Should have been here:

"Disagree with the petition. Trophy hunters should try less accessable lakes, or have regulations changed for those less accessable lakes. Why would you want to restrict fishing opportunities in those lakes that are heavily used and easily accessable? Let the campers and families and tourists have their crack at some fish there. It's like cutting back fishing opportunities and restricting fishing seasons to grow giants in the Glenmore reservoir. Just the wrong body of water to do it on. "

Also, wondering if the up and down nature of the lake levels have been taken into consideration. Would as many of those giants actually develop as you seem to think?

Thanks

[Heron]

For me there is a substantial difference between the quality of the recreation in catching a 6" trout that weighs a couple of ounces to even a 16" fish that may weigh a pound or pound and a half. I am not talking about trophies. The reproduction thing is not really an issue as ther are very few lakes in Alberta where true trout can spawn. Quality is an opinion but limiting out on 10" fish is not very good quality. Not very good eating either. A young deer certainly is good eating.

[FOTW]

I mistakenly put this on probably the wrong thread before. Should have been here:

"Disagree with the petition. Trophy hunters should try less accessable lakes, or have regulations changed for those less accessable lakes. Why would you want to restrict fishing opportunities in those lakes that are heavily used and easily accessable? Let the campers and families and tourists have their crack at some fish there. It's like cutting back fishing opportunities and restricting fishing seasons to grow giants in the Glenmore reservoir. Just the wrong body of water to do it on. "

Also, wondering if the up and down nature of the lake levels have been taken into consideration. Would as many of those giants actually develop as you seem to think?

Thanks

Nothing is being cut back, The rule change would just mean you can not take a fish home.

[Sundancefisher]

I'm still not sure that I understand the logic. There seems to be a different perception of what a quality fishery means. The supporters of this petition interpret it as being able to catch bigger fish while people opposed to it see it as being able to go out and catch fish.

From a hunter's perspective, wouldn't putting size restrictions for fish in the lake be similar to to putting a size restriction on whitetail bucks in a particular wmu? Let's say in wmu xxx a petition was started to limit the size of a buck that you could shoot to a 4x4 or bigger only. The smaller bucks would make it through the season to grow larger antlers and hunters in that wmu would have a better chance to shoot bigger bucks. But what about the people that don't care about the antler size and only want to put some meat in the freezer to eat? Would something like that be beneficial to all Alberta hunters or just the trophy hunters?

The biggest difference between the two that I know is that the smaller bucks can still breed the does while only the bigger trout can spawn.

Right now, based on what I've read and understand about the petition, I won't sign it. It may be something that would benefit a minority of trophy fishermen but not the majority of Alberta anglers.

The trophy fishing argument has been discussed in an earlier thread and addressed quite a few times. A 20 inch rainbow is not a trophy but about 5-6 times larger in weight than a 12 inch rainbow. As funds are not unlimited in F&W... stocking 12 inch rainbows and then pulling them out immediately is expensive freezer stocking. Letting mother nature grow them for free makes more sense.

I always find transfering hunting analogy to fishing difficult. You can't randomly shoot deer in a very limited population and then release them to grow bigger. Generally in hunting...the majority of hunters want to shoot the biggest and best that their tag will give them. While sometimes you are drawn for a doe in a small area and are happy with any meat...that same hunter realistically probably wants a buck twice as big if given an option.

This lake is providing similar ideology of providing the best bang for your buck...both in taxes and in time spent fishing.

If you could only hunt in October...but all the deer released from the deer hatchery were killed by July of that year...you would not be a happy hunter.

Now lets say that you could not shoot that deer until it was 4 years old...and it had grown to 5 times as big as when they were first stocked...and you had a fighting chance to find one...how is that bad? I call that recreationally sporting.

I guess your comment "But what about the people that don't care about the antler size and only want to put some meat in the freezer to eat?" Without this new regulation...chances are the opportunity to catch anything let alone meat on the table drops significantly as the stocked fish get depleted. This is not a stocked trout shooting gallery 24/7 all year long. This is currently a fishery of diminishing returns. I would rather go out at any time of the year and catch 20 trout and not see a 20 incher and then hit a stretch of catching a 20 incher than going out and seeing no fish at all...

Therefore to balance off the cost to stock, chance of successfully catching any fish, chance of catching something to eat...this regulation meets all the requirements of all interested parties. No one is selectively losing. Everyone is winning. This is a win/win scenario.

[Sundancefisher]

I mistakenly put this on probably the wrong thread before. Should have been here:

"Disagree with the petition. Trophy hunters should try less accessable lakes, or have regulations changed for those less accessable lakes. Why would you want to restrict fishing opportunities in those lakes that are heavily used and easily accessable? Let the campers and families and tourists have their crack at some fish there. It's like cutting back fishing opportunities and restricting fishing seasons to grow giants in the Glenmore reservoir. Just the wrong body of water to do it on. "

Also, wondering if the up and down nature of the lake levels have been taken into consideration. Would as many of those giants actually develop as you seem to think?

Thanks


Please read the posts regarding this being called a trophy fishery. Fact is once the trout grow on mother nature's dime to 20 inches they can then be harvested and they do. I don't think a lot of trout grow past 22 inches in Bullshead at least anywheres near where people fish. Many people harvest them and love em cause they are 5-6 times bigger than a 12 inch rainbow.

Therefore I disagree with you calling a 20 inch rainbow a "trophy fishery" or even a giant...if we made this a 30 inch minimum size...then I would have to agree with you insofar as rainbows grow in Alberta. 20 inch rainbows are common in the bow...a 26-30 inch rainbow is considered big...and probably trophy in the Bow.

Your comment "Let the campers and families and tourists have their crack at some fish there." is all fine except in stocked lakes they get fished hard and fast at the beginning and the stocked 12 inch rainbows get depleted fast. 94% of the stocked rainbows are gone each year. Therefore there are very few trout left for any successful fishing adventure later on in the season. If you truly believe this statement of yours then that is the principle reason why you SHOULD sign the petition. Then there will be ample trout for tourists and campers to catch...and when they catch one over 20 inches they can harvest if they so chose. As each year class grows through the system...they will become available for harvest...and you know they will get harvested. But in the meanwhile until they reach 20 inches they will be catchable and loads of fun for tourists, campers, grandpas, grandmas, sons and daughters etc.!

Cheers

Sun

[Okotokian]

For me there is a substantial difference between the quality of the recreation in catching a 6" trout that weighs a couple of ounces to even a 16" fish that may weigh a pound or pound and a half. I am not talking about trophies. The reproduction thing is not really an issue as ther are very few lakes in Alberta where true trout can spawn. Quality is an opinion but limiting out on 10" fish is not very good quality. Not very good eating either. A young deer certainly is good eating.

I hear you, just seems a rule that you can't take a fish unless it's more than half a meter long is a little too restrictive, as is the single fish limit. Though I guess if you are lucky enough to catch a fish that big you only need one. Heck, my home river is already closed most of the year, C&R much of the rest. I can take two fish over 35 cm per day 2 months of the year. I guess I'm just a little (too?) sensitive to the boys who want big ones deciding how it should be. ;) There are varying views of what constitutes "quality". Size is not the only measure.

Thanks.

[Sundancefisher]

I hear you, just seems a rule that you can't take a fish unless it's more than half a meter long is a little too restrictive, as is the single fish limit. Though I guess if you are lucky enough to catch a fish that big you only need one. Heck, my home river is already closed most of the year, C&R much of the rest. I can take two fish over 35 cm per day 2 months of the year. I guess I'm just a little (too?) sensitive to the boys who want big ones deciding how it should be. ;) There are varying views of what constitutes "quality". Size is not the only measure.

Thanks.

Fair enough point of view. However if the choice is between catching a bunch of smaller trout and 1 - 20 inch rainbow that is almost twice the weight of the current limit of stocked rainbows or catching nothing...what is there to decide. If most of the rainbows currently get harvested and there is nothing left to catch for food or fun...where is the value in that? Unfortunately we don't have a conveyor belt of stocked trout dropping into the lake to replace each trout as they are removed...that would be sweet but unfortunately there are significant costs and limitations to our stocking programs in Alberta that stop us from ever seeing that happen.

I am like you...I often like catching any sized fish...but after a while you do get bored of catching small fish over and over again. Just human nature. The majority of stocked lakes are small trout fisheries. In this proposed fishery...those smaller fish remain...but you have a chance at bigger fish. The smaller fish don't stay small forever...they grow and eventually achieve harvesting size. After a few years of initial start up and establishment of the new regulations...there will be a constant stream of keepers growing into range to harvest. Rather than hoping above all to catch something...anything in a lake that has been harvested all year like a vacuum...we can hope to catch some big ones amongst all the fun small ones. Then the one you keep is worth 5-6 small ones so even if you only catch one in every two outings...you are no worse off. Plus the likelihood of leaving skunked...is significantly lessened.

[ADIDAFish]

I mistakenly put this on probably the wrong thread before. Should have been here:

"Disagree with the petition. Trophy hunters should try less accessable lakes, or have regulations changed for those less accessable lakes. Why would you want to restrict fishing opportunities in those lakes that are heavily used and easily accessable? Let the campers and families and tourists have their crack at some fish there. It's like cutting back fishing opportunities and restricting fishing seasons to grow giants in the Glenmore reservoir. Just the wrong body of water to do it on. "

Also, wondering if the up and down nature of the lake levels have been taken into consideration. Would as many of those giants actually develop as you seem to think?

Thanks

If Glenmore reservoir was a stocked trout fishery then I wish they had this at Glenmore! Then my friend's kid wouldn't get skunked everytime they go and he would be more into fishing. A delayed harvest for a stocked lake is a great idea!

Signed and I got two more to sign it as well.

[Sundancefisher]

Link to the petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/dekkbeed/petition.html

180!!!

AWESOME!!!!!!

:test::test::test::test::test::test::test::test:

[Okotokian]

Fair enough point of view. However if the choice is between catching a bunch of smaller trout and 1 - 20 inch rainbow that is almost twice the weight of the current limit of stocked rainbows or catching nothing...what is there to decide.

Ah, but you are a better fisherman than me. ;) LOL You have the choice of a lot of smaller ones or fewer big ones on your fishing day. My fishing day more-often-than-not looks like one or two smaller ones, and NO big ones. If I could only take home fish bigger than 50 cm I guess I'd have to classify myself as a non-voluntary catch and release fisherman. LOL

What about ONE fish between 30 and 50 cm and the other two have to be over 50? Then at least I could still take home one fish and prove to my wife I'm a man.... sorta ;)

[fishpro]

One thing I should point out is how the size limits will affect the size of fish caught, as many people believe that they will not be able to catch the larger fish. In many cases with size limits, there are numerous fish in the size range up to the size limit, but since you can keep the fish over the size limit there are far fewer fish above it. Whatever the size limit is, that will be the size that determines what fish are near it in size.

Essentially what this means is the following: Currently there is a 30cm size limit, meaning that many many fish will be caught in the 20-30 cm range, while a 35 cm fish will be much harder to catch. Now if the size limit changes to 50 cm, fishermen will easily be able to catch fish in the 40-50 cm range, with a 55 cm fish being harder to catch. In other words, no matter what the size limit is, it will be about the same difficulty to catch a legal size fish.

The only reason it is difficult to catch larger fish now is because there are so few of them, it is not a matter of the fisherman's abilities. I have seen this in more than one lake, both with rainbows and with walleye.

[huntsfurfish]

OK lets try to put it another way.

If they stock 100000 trout and 94 % is removed early the same year they are put in you have 6000 trout left to catch during the rest of the year, not counting the larger an or natural fish. (12" trout)

A couple years down the road (and the worst part of this plan would be the wait for the first year implementation to reach harvestable size) 3- 5 years.

Now the reward begins. The first years stocking reaches the 20" size. Read 100000 20" fish. The next years stocking reaches 20" the following year(100000) and so on.

Plus you have fun with the undersized fish as well.

[Sundancefisher]

Ah, but you are a better fisherman than me. ;) LOL You have the choice of a lot of smaller ones or fewer big ones on your fishing day. My fishing day more-often-than-not looks like one or two smaller ones, and NO big ones. If I could only take home fish bigger than 50 cm I guess I'd have to classify myself as a non-voluntary catch and release fisherman. LOL

What about ONE fish between 30 and 50 cm and the other two have to be over 50? Then at least I could still take home one fish and prove to my wife I'm a man.... sorta ;)

As mentioned many different ways...you can't catch the small ones after the majority of them get harvested...so how is this any different from your perspective. With the harvest reduced to 1 from 3...but the sizes way up...your odds actually improve under this new plan.

Bullshead has found that guys with the same misconception as you were proven wrong and the meat guys are actually very happy with the same regulations on Bullshead.

I can see this regulation will work very well for you but unfortunately you have not seen it in action. Sometimes unknown change can be troubling.

Figure this however...if the petition works and for some very strange unexpected reason the new regulations are not a benefit after 5 years...you can always do a petition to change it right back. Nothing is every fixed in stone IMHO.

[HunterDave]

Fact...Catch rates from Kananaskis Lakes for instance. It shows 94% of all trout stocked get harvested in the year they are stocked. That is at 12 inches. That means instant depletion of the resource upon initial stocking. Cheers Sun

Sundance, Can you show me where you got this fact because I'm a little confused? You are saying that it's no fun only catching 12" Rainbow trout but according to the stocking reports Kananaskis Lakes have not been stocked with Rainbow trout since 2002. I'm sure that there's a logical explanation but......

[Sundancefisher]

Sundance, Can you show me where you got this fact because I'm a little confused? You are saying that it's no fun only catching 12" Rainbow trout but according to the stocking reports Kananaskis Lakes have not been stocked with Rainbow trout since 2002. I'm sure that there's a logical explanation but......

Review the data at the start of the thread.

12 inchers get stocked. 94% get removed in the first year. They used to stock smaller trout but survival was low. 12 inchers are a lot more expensive to stock and to remove them immediately leaves little value after they get harvested right away.

These lakes were stocked in the past and it did not work out so well. I actually have first hand knowledge on fisheries studies here.

[jusfloatin]

Sundancerfisher can you help with a link showing when the upper was last stocked as Hunterdave posted I too can only find that it's last stocking of anything was in 2005.

I am also not in agreement with you asking people who do not fish this lake to sign a petition to make a significant rule change that will impact those that do fish this lake.
I guess it's the idea that when these people sign up is it for the right reason or is it just to stir up the pot because it's a slow day for them in BC.

This petition should be placed and made available for signatures in the area that is about to be affected not World Wide Web.

[goldscud]

Stocking info from Mywildalberta

2008 Upper Kan 10,700 Cutts 6cm

2009 Lower Kan 20,000 Cutts 18cm

[Sundancefisher]

Sundancerfisher can you help with a link showing when the upper was last stocked as Hunterdave posted I too can only find that it's last stocking of anything was in 2005.

I am also not in agreement with you asking people who do not fish this lake to sign a petition to make a significant rule change that will impact those that do fish this lake.
I guess it's the idea that when these people sign up is it for the right reason or is it just to stir up the pot because it's a slow day for them in BC.

This petition should be placed and made available for signatures in the area that is about to be affected not World Wide Web.

Fair enough statement that you only will comment on water you fish. However...I strongly suspect that as with the improvements at Bullshead...once Kananaskis is improved...it will draw fishermen from all over Alberta. People that never considered fishing here will come. I never fished Bullshead until the regs changed...then WOW...did I ever have a great time. Those guys that live down there are now truly blessed with a great place to fish.

My only thought to you is that as a resident of Alberta, and a member of the angling community...do you not have a say in how we handle fisheries management...especially if your signature could help change things for the better at one lake?

There is lots of paranoia that I see being cleaned up by the facts and previous history at Bullshead. Those guys had a massive uphill battle. At least we have the facts and the history now to quote.

Regardless of whether you sign or not...I think it is great you care enough to comment and provide an opinion.

Cheers

Sun

[Sundancefisher]

Stocking info from Mywildalberta

2008 Upper Kan 10,700 Cutts 6cm

2009 Lower Kan 20,000 Cutts 18cm

Thanks for posting... I did not have time to track down the details for HunterDave. My understanding is that the lakes are stock every second year with Cutts.

[Okotokian]

As mentioned many different ways...you can't catch the small ones after the majority of them get harvested...so how is this any different from your perspective. .

Well if that is the case then I can see changing my perspective on this issue. If they are stocked in early spring and pretty much fished out by July then yes, some changes probably need to be made. Is that the case though?

[Sundancefisher]

Well if that is the case then I can see changing my perspective on this issue. If they are stocked in early spring and pretty much fished out by July then yes, some changes probably need to be made. Is that the case though?

Based upon the earlier post...94% of the cutts harvested were from same year stocking. These lakes only get stocked every second year. Fishing success tapers off dramatically at all stocked lakes. Lakes like Mt Lorette ponds are actually harvested out completely within 2 weeks of stocking. You want to see something amazing...watch the row upon row of adult males yarding out 10 inch after 10 inch stocked rainbow. I heard many go home only to come back for more...until they are all gone. It is such a waste not to let mother nature fatten them up before harvesting. As mentioned earlier...we might as well just allocate each license the right to pick up their fish directly from Sam Livingstone and save the transportation costs.

[HunterDave]

Stocking info from Mywildalberta

2008 Upper Kan 10,700 Cutts 6cm

2009 Lower Kan 20,000 Cutts 18cm

Thanks goldscud. Additional info:

2009 Upper Kan 14,000 Cutts 19cm, and

2010 Upper Kan 14.010 Cutts 30cm

I had already had a look for the info as I wanted to understand the facts about the petition, for a start, what was being stocked and when it was stocked.

There have been no Rainbow Trout stocked in Kananaskis Lakes since 2002 so any smaller sized ones caught must be spawned. If the Rainbows are spawning naturally, why would you want to keep the larger fish that are reproducing?

In 2010 Upper Kan was stocked in June but in 2008 and 2009 the lake(s) were stocked in September and October. That's as far back as I looked but you'd think that the fish stocked later in the season would stand a better chance of not getting caught and would disperse around the lake. They'd also have a significant amount of time to grow in size before getting caught.

I'd still like to know where the "fact" that 94% of the stocked fish get caught right away comes from? ;)

[HunterDave]

Sundancerfisher can you help with a link showing when the upper was last stocked as Hunterdave posted I too can only find that it's last stocking of anything was in 2005.

Here ya go. Lakes are listed alphabetically. Look for at L for Lower Kan and U for Upper Kan.

http://www.mywildalberta.com/documents/Fish-Stocking-Report-2008.pdf

http://www.mywildalberta.com/documents/Fish-Stocking-Report-2009.pdf

http://www.mywildalberta.com/documents/Fish-Stocking-Report-2010.pdf

[HunterDave]

Stocking info from Mywildalberta

2008 Upper Kan 10,700 Cutts 6cm

2009 Lower Kan 20,000 Cutts 18cm

Further to my last reply, more thorough info about the stocking of Kan Lakes can be found on page 2, post #40 of this thread.:)

[Sundancefisher]

Thanks goldscud. Additional info:

2009 Upper Kan 14,000 Cutts 19cm, and

2010 Upper Kan 14.010 Cutts 30cm

I had already had a look for the info as I wanted to understand the facts about the petition, for a start, what was being stocked and when it was stocked.

There have been no Rainbow Trout stocked in Kananaskis Lakes since 2002 so any smaller sized ones caught must be spawned. If the Rainbows are spawning naturally, why would you want to keep the larger fish that are reproducing?

In 2010 Upper Kan was stocked in June but in 2008 and 2009 the lake(s) were stocked in September and October. That's as far back as I looked but you'd think that the fish stocked later in the season would stand a better chance of not getting caught and would disperse around the lake. They'd also have a significant amount of time to grow in size before getting caught.

I'd still like to know where the "fact" that 94% of the stocked fish get caught right away comes from? ;)

Post 10

[HunterDave]

Post 10

Pikester's post? I didn't see anything in it to explain anything? :confused:

[Sundancefisher]

Pikester's post? I didn't see anything in it to explain anything? :confused:

Sorry...I saw 10 but I see it was 40 for a post number. I missread that but 94% was referring to trout that were just stocked and were harvested that year. We don't have total numbers of trout removed as it is too difficult to collect the information on a lake this size. I will gather some additional information from F&W for you on some actual data.

[HunterDave]

Sorry...I saw 10 but I see it was 40 for a post number. I missread that but 94% was referring to trout that were just stocked and were harvested that year. We don't have total numbers of trout removed as it is too difficult to collect the information on a lake this size. I will gather some additional information from F&W for you on some actual data.

That's okay, don't bother searching for it. I've already found the info on the estimated survival rates and like you said, the total number of trout removed would be difficult to figure out.

GO! CANADA! GO!

[chubbdarter]

GO! CANADA! GO!


woot woot i'll sign up for that
kick their azz kids!!!!!!!!!!

[Sundancefisher]

One other thing to clarify.

Although one person posted that there is a plan to stabilize both lakes, at present, there is no plan to stabilize the water level in UKL. However, there is an initiative currently under way that will hopefully result in the water level being stabilized in LKL. If successful, this would likely result in a tripling of productivity due to re-establishment of a productive littoral zone. In conjunction with the proposed regulation change, this would create one helluva of an even better quality fishery, while still permitting the harvest-oriented anglers to harvest fish that were over the minimum size limit.

[Sundancefisher]

Another point highlight.

In 2010, the catch rate in Upper Kananaskis Lake was 1.0 fish/hour -- over 7 times higher than it was in 1983 -- despite the fact that anglers are supposedly now hampered in catching fish by no longer being permitted to use bait. Furthermore, the average size of the fish caught in 1983 was much smaller than in 2010.

This is clearly evident by looking at the size distribution of the catches in the gillnetting poster in Post 40, which shows the size distribution of the rainbow trout gillnetted in 1983. Most of the rainbows caught in 1983 were very small, recently stocked fish measuring <20 cm (<8 inches). A couple of the main reasons for the low catch rate and small size of fish in 1983 were the liberal bag limit and absence of any size limit. Furthermore, although relatively few fish were released in 1983, those that were would have had a much lower survival rate than in 2010, owing to the fact that the hooking mortality rate for bait-caught fish is about 10 times higher than for fish caught on artificial lures.

The increase in the catch rate in 2010 likely reflects the combined effects of the 30-cm minimum size limit, reduced bag limit and higher catchability of cutthroat trout. Add to this the huge (20-fold) increase in the proportion of sport fish in the catch and the greatly reduced density of suckers in UKL, largely due to predation of suckers by bull trout, and one has to wonder how it is possible for some anglers to continue to claim that we "destroyed" the fishery in UKL when we stocked bull trout and implemented the bait ban, 30-cm minimum size limit and reduced bag limit. If they think that a higher catch rate for larger fish amounts to a "destroyed" fishery, then I guess that the proposed regulations will "devastate" it with even more fish to be caught and those that are keep are of an even greater size than ever before.

Essentially...look at the past data as an experiment proving what the future holds.

In the past...with liberal limits and not size restrictions...catch rates were low and sizes were tiny.

Then limits were reduced to 3 and size restrictions was 12 inches. Catch rates went up dramatically and the average retained size also increased.

Now look forward in time to a 1 fish limit but 20 inches. Now even more fish to catch and an even larger fish to retain. One twenty inch fish blows three 12 inch fish out of the water.

We are moving towards great fishing in UKL and LKL. I can hardly wait.

Sun

[Andrzej]

I've used to take my family to upper lakes for not sophisticated but enjoyable catch and keep rainbows and have this way introduced my boys to pleasure of fishing before some pseudo scientists decided that it should be no bait no stocking lake fishing with bull trout in it.
I think that this one closed the best opportunities to harvest rainbow trout from mountain lake for casual fisherman and their kids.
Promoting Kananaskis Country, drawing hundreds of peoples and their kids to visit and enjoy catch and keep fishery was good for creating passion for this area.
Closing this fisheries for selected trophy anglers further will make less desirable destination for families and limiting your keep to 50 cm is like selling White Tail licence for 170 + point only.
Go to Nakoda Lodge pay 20 $ a day for trophy fishing and leave those pristine mountain lakes with hungry small trout to enjoy by families and to introduce new generations to fishing.

Andrew

[jts1]

I hit Nakoda Lodge often The cash is worth it to be the only guy on the lake for me. I think there should be more lakes that require a fee to enter.

[Sundancefisher]

I've used to take my family to upper lakes for not sophisticated but enjoyable catch and keep rainbows and have this way introduced my boys to pleasure of fishing before some pseudo scientists decided that it should be no bait no stocking lake fishing with bull trout in it.
I think that this one closed the best opportunities to harvest rainbow trout from mountain lake for casual fisherman and their kids.
Promoting Kananaskis Country, drawing hundreds of peoples and their kids to visit and enjoy catch and keep fishery was good for creating passion for this area.
Closing this fisheries for selected trophy anglers further will make less desirable destination for families and limiting your keep to 50 cm is like selling White Tail licence for 170 + point only.
Go to Nakoda Lodge pay 20 $ a day for trophy fishing and leave those pristine mountain lakes with hungry small trout to enjoy by families and to introduce new generations to fishing.

Andrew

I respect your comments but the facts show fishing catch rates actually improved. Your kids actually catch more trout per day than they did in the 1980's under the new regulations.

The protection of the bull trout has dramatically reduced the sucker population that actually competes with the trout for food.

By your comments...the change to 12 inch rainbows is tantamount to a trophy fishery compares to the lack of any size limit in the past. Calling a 20 inch rainbow a trophy in a lake that grows 30 inch rainbows does not spell out the facts but instead shows you have not necessarily read all the information posted so far.

Plus the new regulations are actually designed to benefit everyone and not be biased to any group. It just makes sense to let mother nature grow the trout rather than eat a small trout stocked 2 days earlier and still full of trout pellets.

If you truly believe your post...you should then demand these regulations as it improves everything you are wanting in a fishery for your kids and future kids.


Link to the petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/dekkbeed/petition.html


A signature from you is a commitment to want to create a better fishery for all kids and adults alike.

[jusfloatin]

Sundancefisher I truly believe that your intended stewardship in this matter is true blue and I applaud you for that.
I also understand that by these regulation changes it would undoubtedly entice more to fish the upper K. simply for the reasons you posted.

With any change there will always be the plus and minus effect, simply by raising the catch size we have affected more than just the fish but what they eat and how much and what size of food they eat. Correct me if I am wrong but even bugs will be affected by this action.
Our attempts at manipulating the system has show in the past to be a hit and miss draw.
Bulls head worked ( I don't know as I have never fished it ) which is great but I am sure it has it problems because of that change.
The upper K is a lot more sensitive to change where damaged caused could take 20 years to recuperate.

I was fortunate to fish the upper K at least 2 dozen times this past summer, in those times I hate to admit it but I was skunked a couple times, other days it was just smallies and then there were a couple of days you only dream of. To me that is fishing, the chance of a big one when buddy next to me hooks a smallie.
If all of those days were to be just big fish days I believe I would grow somewhat tired of that. The chase is a big part of the fun.
If your concerns are leaning more to the fight of the fish go to a lighter rod. Everyone has caught a small fish that made you think you have a whopper on the line only to see you just have a little one that is not about to give up for anything.

These few things will be the immediately affect by those changes.
1 line up to off load and load the boat.
2 parking issues
3 the litter
4 traffic
5 dirty water ( being used as a urinal, 2 stroke motors )
I could go on but I am sure you get my point.

I am sorry but I have no interest in seeing those changes, I fish the upper K for more reasons than the just the fish.
The drive up, the scenery while I fish, the color of the water, the fresh smell of clean air, the low amount of people, the anticipation of a big catch amongst the small unwanted catches by some.

Some have said it is paradise up there and I agree, would you be able to say after these changes.
At this moment I know what I have and I am not prepared to risk it.

For those that have not signed this petition as of yet all I ask of you is that you ask yourself to consider all plus and minus's associated with these proposed changes.

Yes I am being selfish for wanting to keep it as it is.

[ADIDAFish]

JustFloatin brings up a good point. Because it will be the only "quality" fishery around, it will be popular. I'll be going more often as well. I don't think it should steer people away from signing the petition though. I think it just points out the fact that there aren't many quality trout fisheries around.

I think it would be shortsighted to not support this movement even if it does get busier up there. If it does bring more families, casual fishermen, and experience fishermen to the area, F & W will take notice and perhaps create another quality fishery nearby. If we have enough of them around, then UKL and LKL will go back to their fairly well used current status instead of being overcrowded.

Sundancefisher, I have a question for you. What other lakes around could you see this working? Obviously the body of water has to be able to overwinter with limited to no winterkill and would be able to grow the fish. On a side not, I always wondered why Chain lakes doesn't seem to be able to grow the fish there. I have only been there a few times but I have only caught little guys and only seen little guys. Is there just not enough food there for them? Also, thanks for all of the thoughtful, fact based posts.

[Okotokian]

I think there should be more lakes that require a fee to enter.

:sick:

Then you would love Europe. Plenty of fees and licences to hunt and fish on small bits of private land, if you have the cash. Little to no free public land to mess up the system.

[Sundancefisher]

Sundancefisher I truly believe that your intended stewardship in this matter is true blue and I applaud you for that.
I also understand that by these regulation changes it would undoubtedly entice more to fish the upper K. simply for the reasons you posted.

With any change there will always be the plus and minus effect, simply by raising the catch size we have affected more than just the fish but what they eat and how much and what size of food they eat. Correct me if I am wrong but even bugs will be affected by this action.
Our attempts at manipulating the system has show in the past to be a hit and miss draw.
Bulls head worked ( I don't know as I have never fished it ) which is great but I am sure it has it problems because of that change.
The upper K is a lot more sensitive to change where damaged caused could take 20 years to recuperate.

I was fortunate to fish the upper K at least 2 dozen times this past summer, in those times I hate to admit it but I was skunked a couple times, other days it was just smallies and then there were a couple of days you only dream of. To me that is fishing, the chance of a big one when buddy next to me hooks a smallie.
If all of those days were to be just big fish days I believe I would grow somewhat tired of that. The chase is a big part of the fun.
If your concerns are leaning more to the fight of the fish go to a lighter rod. Everyone has caught a small fish that made you think you have a whopper on the line only to see you just have a little one that is not about to give up for anything.

These few things will be the immediately affect by those changes.
1 line up to off load and load the boat.
2 parking issues
3 the litter
4 traffic
5 dirty water ( being used as a urinal, 2 stroke motors )
I could go on but I am sure you get my point.

I am sorry but I have no interest in seeing those changes, I fish the upper K for more reasons than the just the fish.
The drive up, the scenery while I fish, the color of the water, the fresh smell of clean air, the low amount of people, the anticipation of a big catch amongst the small unwanted catches by some.

Some have said it is paradise up there and I agree, would you be able to say after these changes.
At this moment I know what I have and I am not prepared to risk it.

For those that have not signed this petition as of yet all I ask of you is that you ask yourself to consider all plus and minus's associated with these proposed changes.

Yes I am being selfish for wanting to keep it as it is.

I said it in a post earlier that I can not disagree with the only negative to these changes and that is with better fishing you will bring an increasing number of visitors.

That being said...these visitors will be additional fishing visitors...and likely will not affect hiking etc. Litter problems will not increase significantly as seen at Bullshead (every time I went there it was clean as fishermen respect the land and water extremely high). With more anglers you have more stewardship and more respect and appreciation for the resource. Actually I pick up more garbage along hiking trails than fishing places. The only significant issue will be for you seeing more happy anglers on the lake where once you saw few if any fishing. That is the only price to pay with success.

You comment about affecting the lake upon reflection is incorrect IMHO. Understanding these lakes are already stocked...have been stocked in the past...once had native cutthroat and bulltrout in them...are extensively impacted by the dams to me puts this concern of yours as non existent. In fact additional fishing activity will likely be the additional pressure needed to pursuade the powers that be to mitigate the water fluctuations more and actually improve the lakes biota.

As for fish sizes...I love catching anything verusus nothing and just love fishing. That being said if I fished once or twice a year...catching 8 inch stocked rainbows may of sufficed. BUT...if there were 20 inch rainbows to be caught along with plenty of 12-19 inch ones to catch...then...WOW...I would of fished more than twice. Downsizing your gear is all fine but still...small trout are no challenge compared to 20 inchers. I saw this principle on our perch problem in Lake Sundance. When the perch maxed out at 6 inches...few people wanted to fish for them more than once or twice a year if that. Now that we are seeing plenty of perch in the 8-10 inch category...the numbers of anglers is increasing. If they were 12-14 inches long...you bet interest would be even greater.

While I understand you are happy with 8-12 inch rainbows...I believe the majority of the population wants better fishing. So being fair to all users...you will still get your fish and smaller ones to catch for your enjoyment...larger ones for the rest of us...and nice reasonably sized 20 inchers for people to harvest if they so chose.

As for these specific concerns...

1 line up to off load and load the boat. Most people will either fish from shore or in pontoon/belly boats versus boat launching. There is tons of shore line to fish from...loads of room to give everyone space...I have only ever fished it from shore or in my belly boat and had a great scenic day...albiet with not a lot of fish. That will soon change!

2 parking issues There are lots of access points and lots of parking. Parking has never been a problem here. Chances are the available parking will finally get used.

3 the litter With more fishermen around...more hikers and picicker's litter will get picked up. More traffic will mean better servicing by parks and probably better patrolling!

4 traffic Fishermen will drive in first thing and leave at dusk. Therefore not a lot of additional traffic. Plus we are not talking about thousands of people a day so you have to be careful not to exaggerate this a being a problem. Traffic will also be dispersed to the various access points. Increased fishermen will watch the water for pollution and also poaching.

5 dirty water ( being used as a urinal, 2 stroke motors ) Not sure what the motor law is. I don't know many guys that would urinate out on the water in a tube. They mostly go to shore. I would say the reems of hikers probably add more urine that the occasional fisherman. Understanding also that there are reservoirs that flush lot of water out each year...I would not be concerned about the very low potential of build up. And actually...a little more nitrogen would help the bugs you are worried about. :-)

So in the end you said you like there being no one else but you fishing...you get skunked but still you wanted better fishing at times that you drove to Bullshead and loved it. Calgary and region has no quality fishery nearby and you don't want to vote to have one. While I can not understand your logic...I would recommend that if you want to fish in a reservoir near Calgary that has a nice view and few fish and even fewer users to consider switching to Barrier Lake and help make UKL and LKL a fishery to be proud of.

Cheers

Sun

[Sundancefisher]

Sundancefisher, I have a question for you. What other lakes around could you see this working? Obviously the body of water has to be able to overwinter with limited to no winterkill and would be able to grow the fish. On a side not, I always wondered why Chain lakes doesn't seem to be able to grow the fish there. I have only been there a few times but I have only caught little guys and only seen little guys. Is there just not enough food there for them? Also, thanks for all of the thoughtful, fact based posts.

I can not think of any other bodies of water near Calgary that makes sense. Smaller lakes could work technically but are way to small to handle the fishing pressure. A lake like Hector while smallish would be very intriguing...but it is private. Unfortunately for us...we have very, very few trout lakes of any significance or any lakes at all for that matter close to Calgary. I would think that without UKL and LKL we would be stuck not having any quality fish within a reasonable distance of Calgary.

Chain Lakes is stocked very high which I suspect impacts their growth. It has shoreline accessibiliy issues. It is also a very successful small trout fishery...way higher catch rates than UKL or LKL has ever had. I suspect changing it would receive a significant back lash. Maybe if those complaining changed their minds after seeing success elsewhere...they themselves would need to lead that charge. Issues like this takes a lot of personal time and patience and frankly it beats you down emotionally. That is why we have to support those that are championing it. That is why I am supporting these fine folks.

Sun

[jusfloatin]

I said it in a post earlier that I can not disagree with the only negative to these changes and that is with better fishing you will bring an increasing number of visitors.

That being said...these visitors will be additional fishing visitors...and likely will not affect hiking etc. Litter problems will not increase significantly as seen at Bullshead (every time I went there it was clean as fishermen respect the land and water extremely high). With more anglers you have more stewardship and more respect and appreciation for the resource. Actually I pick up more garbage along hiking trails than fishing places. The only significant issue will be for you seeing more happy anglers on the lake where once you saw few if any fishing. That is the only price to pay with success.

You comment about affecting the lake upon reflection is incorrect IMHO. Understanding these lakes are already stocked...have been stocked in the past...once had native cutthroat and bulltrout in them...are extensively impacted by the dams to me puts this concern of yours as non existent. In fact additional fishing activity will likely be the additional pressure needed to pursuade the powers that be to mitigate the water fluctuations more and actually improve the lakes biota.

As for fish sizes...I love catching anything verusus nothing and just love fishing. That being said if I fished once or twice a year...catching 8 inch stocked rainbows may of sufficed. BUT...if there were 20 inch rainbows to be caught along with plenty of 12-19 inch ones to catch...then...WOW...I would of fished more than twice. Downsizing your gear is all fine but still...small trout are no challenge compared to 20 inchers. I saw this principle on our perch problem in Lake Sundance. When the perch maxed out at 6 inches...few people wanted to fish for them more than once or twice a year if that. Now that we are seeing plenty of perch in the 8-10 inch category...the numbers of anglers is increasing. If they were 12-14 inches long...you bet interest would be even greater.

While I understand you are happy with 8-12 inch rainbows...I believe the majority of the population wants better fishing. So being fair to all users...you will still get your fish and smaller ones to catch for your enjoyment...larger ones for the rest of us...and nice reasonably sized 20 inchers for people to harvest if they so chose.

As for these specific concerns...

1 line up to off load and load the boat. Most people will either fish from shore or in pontoon/belly boats versus boat launching. There is tons of shore line to fish from...loads of room to give everyone space...I have only ever fished it from shore or in my belly boat and had a great scenic day...albiet with not a lot of fish. That will soon change!

2 parking issues There are lots of access points and lots of parking. Parking has never been a problem here. Chances are the available parking will finally get used.

3 the litter With more fishermen around...more hikers and picicker's litter will get picked up. More traffic will mean better servicing by parks and probably better patrolling!

4 traffic Fishermen will drive in first thing and leave at dusk. Therefore not a lot of additional traffic. Plus we are not talking about thousands of people a day so you have to be careful not to exaggerate this a being a problem. Traffic will also be dispersed to the various access points. Increased fishermen will watch the water for pollution and also poaching.

5 dirty water ( being used as a urinal, 2 stroke motors ) Not sure what the motor law is. I don't know many guys that would urinate out on the water in a tube. They mostly go to shore. I would say the reems of hikers probably add more urine that the occasional fisherman. Understanding also that there are reservoirs that flush lot of water out each year...I would not be concerned about the very low potential of build up. And actually...a little more nitrogen would help the bugs you are worried about. :-)

So in the end you said you like there being no one else but you fishing...you get skunked but still you wanted better fishing at times that you drove to Bullshead and loved it. Calgary and region has no quality fishery nearby and you don't want to vote to have one. While I can not understand your logic...I would recommend that if you want to fish in a reservoir near Calgary that has a nice view and few fish and even fewer users to consider switching to Barrier Lake and help make UKL and LKL a fishery to be proud of.

Cheers

Sun

Sundancer you are miss quoting me

Where do I say this " So in the end you said you like there being no one else but you fishing "

Where do I say this " you get skunked but still you wanted better fishing at times that you drove to Bullshead and loved it " I have never fished Bullshead

As for your comment to
#1 you mean there won't be an increase of boats because of this change?
#2 parking will defiantly be affected you are talking about a " quality fishery" are you not, people will be coming from much greater difference dragging more than just belly boats
#3 to state that there would be less litter because more people will pickup the liter is not true.
#4 various access points?

[madatter]

Seeing the effect this has had on Bullshead Reservoir,I do not know anybody who has fished it since that would rather it go back to general regulations.
Simply put a lot of people want quality fisheries and are willing to go home with a smile rather than a fish....

[Sundancefisher]

Sundancer you are miss quoting me

Where do I say this " So in the end you said you like there being no one else but you fishing "

Where do I say this " you get skunked but still you wanted better fishing at times that you drove to Bullshead and loved it " I have never fished Bullshead

As for your comment to
#1 you mean there won't be an increase of boats because of this change?
#2 parking will defiantly be affected you are talking about a " quality fishery" are you not, people will be coming from much greater difference dragging more than just belly boats
#3 to state that there would be less litter because more people will pickup the liter is not true.
#4 various access points?

Sorry...maybe I read into your comments more than necessary.

You stated you liked "...the low amount of people" To me your saying you like the lack of people. You like serenity which will be disturbed by increasing the number of fishermen. I can relate and understand and agree that will certainly change.

You stated you were skunked...but I see you caught lots other day...so my fault...I misread that. Yes...I admit upon review I unintentionally misquoted this. I apologize.

I don't think there will be a ton more boats. But there are huge lakes with almost no boats now. There is lots of room to share. You say the fishing is great now. How many boats use it? What is the standard current fishing method you see? Shore, boat...belly boat/pontoon? On a percentage basis it should stay that way. Out of 20 people I saw fishing there one weekend. three were sharing a boat...3 in tubes...all the rest were from shore. If it is a wonderful place to fish now...yet you say the fishing will improve greatly and attract a ton more people to create these problems..so we should not fix it is a cop out. I think we should address concerns like yours in the plan and mitigate it while improving the fishery. To me that is the smart approach rather than continue to let a fishery stagnate.

There is lots of parking that is rarely if ever all used up. I have not seen it any time I visited there. Yes...there may be times where it is busy...but hey...the tax payers built and paid for it...it would be nice to see it used for once.

Fishermen are great at picking up litter. So I firmly believe there is no increase just from fishermen. While some people are slobs...so are some people great custodians. I hear time and time again about fishermen picking up after others. I take a bad with me hiking and fishing and generally garbage I pick up is from hikers and mountain bikers and quadders.

Various access points...there are multiple spots to access LKL. There is great shoreline access around UKL. Better than most lakes of similar size in the province. The easy access is what helps make this ideas make sense.

In the end...the impression I still get is that you are mainly worried about crowding. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding you. I think more people is expected but at Bullhead where tons more showed up...I still had tons of room to fish. Everyone was very, very happy. Your fishing success will probably stay the same or improve as expected.

[HunterDave]

:sick:

Then you would love Europe. Plenty of fees and licences to hunt and fish on small bits of private land, if you have the cash. Little to no free public land to mess up the system.

x2 I lived in Germany for 5 years where only the rich can afford to hunt. The cost of fishing the local stocked gravel pit is affordable but you still have to pay a fee to fish it. That is above and beyond the cost of your fishing license.

Be careful of what you wish for public bodies of water in Alberta.

[slingshotz]

x2 I lived in Germany for 5 years where only the rich can afford to hunt. The cost of fishing the local stocked gravel pit is affordable but you still have to pay a fee to fish it. That is above and beyond the cost of your fishing license.

Be careful of what you wish for public bodies of water in Alberta.

It cost me $40 A FREAKING DAY to fish ONE river when I was in Finland and locals get NO break on that cost. I hope we never get to that situation. However, they have a reverse situation compared to Alberta, very few fishable rivers and millions of lakes (thus barely regulated and almost much free for all).

[Sundancefisher]

:sick:

Then you would love Europe. Plenty of fees and licences to hunt and fish on small bits of private land, if you have the cash. Little to no free public land to mess up the system.

Sidetrack...

I would fight that pay model tooth and nail. I hate the $20 a day we Albertans have to pay in BC. I have heard no one complain of that fact in BC for a while. We should charge BC guides and residents to fish the Crow, Livingstone, Oldman, Bow and also extra fees to shoot big game and birds. Free gopher hunting though.

Now the ocean going fish that are Federally owned are also going to cost Albertans huge extra money to fish plus restrictions on which days we can fish.

Just give me UKL and LKL with a pile of trout to catch ranging in size from 12 inches to 30 inches and I will be happy to pay my fishing license fees.

237 signatures to date... probably all from AOF!

Great going TEAM AOF... WE KICK BUTT! F&W beware...the monster fish is awakened!

[HunterDave]

237 signatures to date... probably all from AOF!

Great going TEAM AOF... WE KICK BUTT! F&W beware...the monster fish is awakened!

Just a thought...........Why not start a poll to see how many people support, oppose or don't care about the proposed new regulation?

You've had over 3,500 hits on this thread and only a dozen different posters. What are the silent majority thinking?

[HunterDave]

Just a thought...........Why not start a poll to see how many people support, oppose or don't care about the proposed new regulation?

You've had over 3,500 hits on this thread and only a dozen different posters. What are the silent majority thinking?

Further to my last..........It would probably be better to present a simple question in the poll as unbiased as possible such as "Would you support a new regulation increasing the catch size in Upper Kan Lake?" (Yes, No or Don't Care) or words to that effect and direct people to this thread for more info on the topic.

[jusfloatin]

Just a thought...........Why not start a poll to see how many people support, oppose or don't care about the proposed new regulation?

You've had over 3,500 hits on this thread and only a dozen different posters. What are the silent majority thinking?

I like that idea.

[Sundancefisher]

Just a thought...........Why not start a poll to see how many people support, oppose or don't care about the proposed new regulation?

You've had over 3,500 hits on this thread and only a dozen different posters. What are the silent majority thinking?

I suspect...many are slow to take up a cause. Others live far away and don't feel it is warranted for them to sign. Still if someone wanted to fix a lake near Fox Creek or Cold Lake I would be more than happy to put my support behind it.

There are a lot of members on this board. How many are duplicates we can't say. How many look only occasionally hard to know. How many ever post...maybe a Mod could say. How many on the board really care about fishing...maybe more hunters here. How many post often...from what I gather...a minority. Very interesting social dynamics on any board. Who knows...maybe a lot are just watching...reading and thinking about. We seem to get a few every day...maybe those that look only every so often like what they see then sign up. Of all the views...are they all different users? I am not sure how this board assigns a number to that feature.

Anyways...a poll would be redundant...people will think about it over time and either sign or not sign. Maybe all those that have fished Bullshead signed right away and others just don't understand all the benefits to be obtained by the new proposed regulations.

I also read once that for every 1 person that takes the time to sign a petition to reflect their agreement...10 - 20 don't sign because of apathy...but still believe. Based upon that...237 signatures...could mean over 2370...:test:

Cheers

Sun

[hunter49]

Who wants to bet that after the new size limits go into effect, the next thing that will be banned is icefishing on the lakes. Just like all the other "trophy" lakes.

[Sundancefisher]

Who wants to bet that after the new size limits go into effect, the next thing that will be banned is icefishing on the lakes. Just like all the other "trophy" lakes.

I would... How much do you want to bet? These are large lakes with existing ice fishing. There are no plans now or in the future for such a regulation. Plus this is not a trophy lake and no different than the existing regs except the minimum size is 20 inches in a lake that grows them to 30 inches and from 3 fish down to 1 since the weight of one will equal 3-6 smaller ones. People now wait for fish to be 12 inches before harvest...no one who is against the new regulation is complaining about the fishing now but rather fighting against allowing mother nature to grow them a bit bigger before harvest. A delayed harvest is just a delay. Plus that only means you are delayed harvesting the small ones today. The small ones stocked 4 years ago that have grown bigger and are 20 inches long can be harvested today. Simple and efficient use of your tax payers dollars.

The benefit is in a quality fishery...there are fish for everyone...all year. I would not support an ice fishing closure. Paranoia does nothing but halt benefical progress IMHO. Still..contact F&W and ask them...if such a regulation was introduces as per the petition...would they ever consider a fishing ban over winter...

Now the reason I would bet...is cause...in all honesty...I personally asked before I signed...they said no. :-)

Thanks

Sun

[HunterDave]

I like that idea.

I thought that it was a good idea too so I went ahead and did it.

[GaryF]

Re the number of ppl that have visited the thread. I happen to be one intersted individual that visits this thread everytime there are new posts, have been from day one. Average of 2-3 visits per day to read what is being said, so prob about 60+ visits. Its not that I have nothing to say but I agree with the petition and all the comments that sundance has made. He's explained everything very thouroughly and has never let this thread turn into a gong show unlike many other threads on this forum. Bravo!!

[Shiami]

I think I'd be for this.

I'd be more for it if the proposed changes were on a waterbody anywhere NEAR me though, it'd be a heck of a busy day-trip driving down to Calgary for some troutfishing.

I have personally noticed the instant stock depletion that comes with the more liberal trout-pond regulations. So far, this has amounted to me not seeing a stocked trout on my line in about *thinks* 18 years. Very rarely am I the first one out after stocking.

Yup. I'm bad at fishing. I was one of those baitfishing kids, out with my dad, with the ONLY intent being to catch dinner. I'll add though, that yes, going to Safeway might have been cheaper than gas money (though gas WAS a whole tonne cheaper back then). But when daddy's blown through the child support money in beer and cigarettes, and he happens to have fishing gear, gasoline and 5 pairs of hands to hold rods, license-free... well, if we didn't catch the stockies, we didn't eat.

It's sad that only now at 24 am I starting to learn how to really fish, and seeing the value in throwing things back.

I DO wish I'd actually SEEN catch and release fishing as a kid.

Having broken a heck of a no-fish streak this past year, I have to say, seeing the first fish I've caught in a decade swim off back to his home was a good feeling. Nearly as good as the adrenalin rush I got having him on the line.

Now, the sad truth is I'm still a terrible fisher. But I'm slowly teaching myself. And I'd love to have more ponds where the trout aren't fished out right away, so I can learn. I want a place where I can test out my new fly rod, (hooking myself in the process, more often than not), and watch the fish scorn my woeful presentation. I want a place where I can learn how to jig things so that they look like they might be alive, and what exactly a good retrieve speed is for a spinner. I don't care if the trout aren't stupid and take work to catch. It's if there is no fish at all that's really frustrating.

[Sundancefisher]

I think I'd be for this.

I'd be more for it if the proposed changes were on a waterbody anywhere NEAR me though, it'd be a heck of a busy day-trip driving down to Calgary for some troutfishing.

I have personally noticed the instant stock depletion that comes with the more liberal trout-pond regulations. So far, this has amounted to me not seeing a stocked trout on my line in about *thinks* 18 years. Very rarely am I the first one out after stocking.

Yup. I'm bad at fishing. I was one of those baitfishing kids, out with my dad, with the ONLY intent being to catch dinner. I'll add though, that yes, going to Safeway might have been cheaper than gas money (though gas WAS a whole tonne cheaper back then). But when daddy's blown through the child support money in beer and cigarettes, and he happens to have fishing gear, gasoline and 5 pairs of hands to hold rods, license-free... well, if we didn't catch the stockies, we didn't eat.

It's sad that only now at 24 am I starting to learn how to really fish, and seeing the value in throwing things back.

I DO wish I'd actually SEEN catch and release fishing as a kid.

Having broken a heck of a no-fish streak this past year, I have to say, seeing the first fish I've caught in a decade swim off back to his home was a good feeling. Nearly as good as the adrenalin rush I got having him on the line.

Now, the sad truth is I'm still a terrible fisher. But I'm slowly teaching myself. And I'd love to have more ponds where the trout aren't fished out right away, so I can learn. I want a place where I can test out my new fly rod, (hooking myself in the process, more often than not), and watch the fish scorn my woeful presentation. I want a place where I can learn how to jig things so that they look like they might be alive, and what exactly a good retrieve speed is for a spinner. I don't care if the trout aren't stupid and take work to catch. It's if there is no fish at all that's really frustrating.

I hear ya. There is a series of steps progressing through the fishing spectrum that most people seem to take. The learning how to catch fish...well that can be frustrating for sure but is really helps fishing for trout in a lake that has lots left.

Practice definitely makes perfect...but still we all have the bad days... Often the skill is evident in how many you can catch on the good days and limiting the skunked days.

Keep on plugging away and especially latch on to what others are doing around you. Ask questions, imitate and above all...constantly try new things.

Cheers

Sun

[Andrzej]

I respect your comments but the facts show fishing catch rates actually improved. Your kids actually catch more trout per day than they did in the 1980's under the new regulations.

The protection of the bull trout has dramatically reduced the sucker population that actually competes with the trout for food.

By your comments...the change to 12 inch rainbows is tantamount to a trophy fishery compares to the lack of any size limit in the past. Calling a 20 inch rainbow a trophy in a lake that grows 30 inch rainbows does not spell out the facts but instead shows you have not necessarily read all the information posted so far.

Plus the new regulations are actually designed to benefit everyone and not be biased to any group. It just makes sense to let mother nature grow the trout rather than eat a small trout stocked 2 days earlier and still full of trout pellets.

If you truly believe your post...you should then demand these regulations as it improves everything you are wanting in a fishery for your kids and future kids.


Link to the petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/dekkbeed/petition.html


A signature from you is a commitment to want to create a better fishery for all kids and adults alike.

Sundancefisher

I don't remember 80's on Upper Lakes as I am Albertan since 1999 and when I first discovered Upper Lake shores of this lake were full of families catching fish and enjoying extraordinary environment.
After bait ban those shorelines became abandoned, empty.... sad.
Once you introduce bait ban on any body of water how do you expect 3 years old to catch fish ? casting flies, casting spinners??? they will not be there.
This decision itself killed this place as a family fishing destination.
After bull trout was reintroduced to UKL lake was not stocked with rainbows any more.
After multiple fishless, baitless trips for couple of years after those changes were put in place I gave up on fishing there.
BTW every time after fishing I filled fishing report cards present at boat lunch and my report would be like this ;fished 6 hrs 0 fish, 0 baits.

I've met some passionate people lately loaded with info about potential of UKL.
For me seeing child catching his first 6 cm fish is more important that old f.rt catching 30 inch rainbow.

I respect your conviction for the cause and do not pretend to know how fisheries should be run, those are my thoughts.

Cheers Andrew

[goldscud]

One of the good things about Cutthroats being stocked today in Kananaskis is that they are much easier to catch than rainbows. I think a lot of kids will be able to catch them on their spinning rods with a fly suspended under or adjacent a bobber. I know that is how I learned to fish. There was many times my friends and I would just use a small piece of drift wood for a float and to add distance to our casts.

[GaryF]

Another thing I have noticed in this thread is that everyone seems to be hung up on the 20" size. This is just the HARVESTING size, not the catching size. You would be able to keep anything over 20" the rest would go back. You will still be catching smaller fish, just not keeping them.

[spinerfisher]

Sundancefisher

I don't remember 80's on Upper Lakes as I am Albertan since 1999 and when I first discovered Upper Lake shores of this lake were full of families catching fish and enjoying extraordinary environment.
After bait ban those shorelines became abandoned, empty.... sad.
Once you introduce bait ban on any body of water how do you expect 3 years old to catch fish ? casting flies, casting spinners??? they will not be there.
This decision itself killed this place as a family fishing destination.
After bull trout was reintroduced to UKL lake was not stocked with rainbows any more.
After multiple fishless, baitless trips for couple of years after those changes were put in place I gave up on fishing there.
BTW every time after fishing I filled fishing report cards present at boat lunch and my report would be like this ;fished 6 hrs 0 fish, 0 baits.

I've met some passionate people lately loaded with info about potential of UKL.
For me seeing child catching his first 6 cm fish is more important that old f.rt catching 30 inch rainbow.

I respect your conviction for the cause and do not pretend to know how fisheries should be run, those are my thoughts.

Cheers Andrew



Would you stop using kids as an excuse everytime:sign0176:

[Bigtoad]

Last fall I was catching whitefish off of a small private dock on Sylvan lake in about 2' of water with my flyrod. I went and got my friend's 3 year old son who loves fishing to come out with me. I would cast and then hand the rod to him. The fish would hit, he would set and he would reel in the fish. We both had a blast.

Did he care if he was using bait? Nope. Did he care that he wasn't casting? Not really. He was just having fun. Oh, and we threw them all back after each of us gave it a big sloppy kiss, by the way.

You don't need to use bait to catch fish with kids. You don't need to keep fish to keep kids interested. The proposed changes to these lakes can only help the fishery and those (everyone, not just the stuck-up flyfishermen like myself that like to catch big fish) that use it.

Cheers.

[Sundancefisher]

Last fall I was catching whitefish off of a small private dock on Sylvan lake in about 2' of water with my flyrod. I went and got my friend's 3 year old son who loves fishing to come out with me. I would cast and then hand the rod to him. The fish would hit, he would set and he would reel in the fish. We both had a blast.

Did he care if he was using bait? Nope. Did he care that he wasn't casting? Not really. He was just having fun. Oh, and we threw them all back after each of us gave it a big sloppy kiss, by the way.

You don't need to use bait to catch fish with kids. You don't need to keep fish to keep kids interested. The proposed changes to these lakes can only help the fishery and those (everyone, not just the stuck-up flyfishermen like myself that like to catch big fish) that use it.

Cheers.

Kids and adults a like that used to bait fish at Bullshead switched to bobber and a fly...and surprisingly enough I have seen them do better than just straight flyfishermen. The big bonus for these guys is less cost...no more bait to buy...less garbage to haul around in bait containers etc.

I often set my kids up with a bobber and a fly and they have a blast. You have to hold your rod to set the hook when the bobber goes under but the bonus is you don't have a trout sucking the hook into its stomach making release impossible if you were so inclined.

We also have to note that with the no bait restriction put in place at UKL showed a 7 times increase in the catch rates when compared to a creel survey done when bait was allowed. Bait is really no excuse as to catching or not catching trout. There is an old saying that 5% of the fishermen catch 95% of the fish. At Bullshead I saw most people catching trout...but the 5% folks could just catch tons more. Therefore with practice...everyone does well when you have fish to catch and practice on.

Cheers

Sun

[Andrzej]

Would you stop using kids as an excuse everytime:sign0176:

Excuse for what???

Maybe I really care about introduction of kids to fishing experience ?

Have a look at my avatar picture. Do you see lake there ? This is my lake and I am holder of aquaculture licence and my stocking program started in 2009 and will continue.

There is a lots of little kids already that caught their first fish in there. Couple of them from Switzerland... You should see their happy faces...

I was unhappy that someone decided to stop put and take at UKL due to the fact that lower lake was already trophy lake for lake trout and for C&R crowd.
Yes I would like to see UKL reversed to put and take for the enjoyment of visitors.

Andrew

[Bigtoad]

Here you go Andrew. If you don't want kids to catch more fish and bigger fish at the K lakes because of stricter regs, then here are some options in the Calgary region for you:

AIRDRIE POND (1-27-1-W5)
ALLEN BILL POND (30-22-5-W5)
ALLISON LAKE (27-8-5-W5)
ALLISON LAKE (27-8-5-W5)
BATHING LAKE (11-4-1-W5)
BEAUVAIS LAKE (29-5-1-W5)
BEAVER MINES LAKE (11-5-3-W5)
BULLER POND (20-22-10-W5)
BURMIS LAKE (14-7-3-W5)
BURN'S RESERVOIR (26-6-30-W4)
CHAIN LAKES RESERVOIR (4-15-2-W5)
COLEMAN FISH AND GAME POND (24-8-5-W5)
COTTONWOOD LAKE (16-7-29-W4)
CROSSFIELD TROUT POND (27-28-1-W5)
CROWSNEST LAKE (8-8-5-W5)
DEWITT'S POND (31-26-1-W5)
GRANUM POND (31-10-26-W4)
GROTTO MOUNTAIN POND (21-24-9-W5)
LEES LAKE (8-7-2-W5)
LOWER CHAMPION LAKE (26-21-5-W5)
MARGARET LAKE (15-28-9-W5)
MCLEAN POND (20-22-5-W5)
MOUNT LORETTE PONDS (19-23-8-W5)
PAYNE LAKE (MAMI LAKE) (10-2-28-W4)
SIBBALD LAKE (14-24-7-W5)
SIBBALD MEADOWS POND (20-24-7-W5)
SPARROW'S EGG LAKE (6-20-8-W5)
UPPER CHAMPION LAKE (26-21-5-W5)
UPPER KANANASKIS LAKE (23-19-9-W5)

Or, drive an hour or two North:

ALFORD LAKE (4-36-8-W5)
BEAVER LAKE (16-35-6-W5)
BIRCH LAKE (18-35-6-W5)
BRAZEAU BORROW PIT #1 (32-45-10-W5)
CAMP 9 TROUT POND (32-44-8-W5)
DICKSON TROUT POND (13-35-3-W5)
ELK CREEK POND (33-35-12-W5)
FIESTA LAKE (12-35-6-W5)
GOLDEYE LAKE (14-40-16-W5)
HARLECK POND (5-41-14-W5)
IRONSIDE POND (7-38-7-W5)
MITCHELL LAKE (25-37-8-W5)
NORDEGG BORROW PIT (EAST) (32-40-15-W5)
PEPPERS LAKE (30-35-12-W5)
PHYLLIS LAKE (17-36-7-W5)
RAT LAKE (11-38-9-W5)
ROCKY CHILDREN'S POND (33-39-7-W5)
SHUNDA LAKE (FISH LAKE) (19-40-15-W5)
STRUBEL LAKE (30-37-7-W5)
TAY LAKE (5-36-8-W5)
THUNDER LAKE (4-45-19-W5)
TWIN LAKES (6-40-7-W5)
WINCHELL LAKE (2-29-5-W5)

My point being, there are a ton of places to take kids fishing besides the K lakes (which are still going to be great for kids fishing!) But out of both of these stocking lists, there are only a handful of fisheries that are attempting to achieve a "quality" status. And only a couple have C&R regs and both of those are barely puddles.

Why the resistance to what seems to be such a common sense positive change to a fishery?

Cheers.

[75ft Arborist]

I'd love to see this regulation brought in. As well as rainbows being stocked again in upper kananaskis. Whoever's bright idea it was to get rid of the rainbows in upper kananaskis and stock bull trout/cutthroat should be smacked around.

X2 and i support the smacking

[Sundancefisher]

I was unhappy that someone decided to stop put and take at UKL due to the fact that lower lake was already trophy lake for lake trout and for C&R crowd.
Yes I would like to see UKL reversed to put and take for the enjoyment of visitors.

Andrew

There are no Lake Trout in LKL. Never stocked with Lake Trout. They stocked Rainbows a long time ago...now they stock Cutts. Bull Trout is Alberta Provincial fish and an awesome fish to catch. Lots of fun. They are native to these lakes but over fishing almost wiped them out. Through careful conservation and zero catch limits they came back. Some stocking occurred just to help a bit with natural reproduction but it is not a regular event now or in the future. As they are so easy to catch... that over exploitation is still possible hense the current regs. You are not getting many supporting bull trout on this thread as they are secretive of the fun this fishery provides.

UKL and LKL are both currently put and take lakes. Your statement to the contrary is false. Look at the regulations. The future regulations are still 100% put and take. The plan however is for folks such as yourself and show a little patience and let the trout grow for a few years before harvest. It makes little sense to stock a trout and then harvest it tomorrow. The gas alone costs more than buying the fish at the grocery store. Therefore...why not appreciate taking bigger trout and having a great recreational sport fishing experience.

Having patience does not mean you have to wait every year...for once we establish regular stocking programs we will have a constant yearly supply of larger trout to bonk if wanted.

The current regulations are 12 inch...I am not sure how you could possibly call that trophy and catch and release. The improved regulations would be 20 inch. 20 inch rainbow are not trophy sized. These lakes grow fish over 30 inches...over 10 lbs. The only reason 20 inch fish seem monsterous in Alberta is because current regs promote instant harvest. A little patience goes a long ways insofar as letting mother nature grow the trout versus a commercial feed pellet. As catch rates have gone up dramatically...I question you logic as to why things are so bad. Fishing here will go from fair to great with the implemented new regs.

I know it may be hard to think a few years in advance as often we live in the here and now but have patience...growing fish bigger is a really good thing. While they grow...you can still catch them and put em back to grow bigger.

Cheers

Sun

[Gust]

There are no Lake Trout in LKL. Never stocked with Lake Trout. They stocked Rainbows a long time ago...now they stock Cutts. Bull Trout is Alberta Provincial fish and an awesome fish to catch. Lots of fun. They are native to these lakes but over fishing almost wiped them out. Through careful conservation and zero catch limits they came back. Some stocking occurred just to help a bit with natural reproduction but it is not a regular event now or in the future. As they are so easy to catch... that over exploitation is still possible hense the current regs. You are not getting many supporting bull trout on this thread as they are secretive of the fun this fishery provides.

UKL and LKL are both currently put and take lakes. Your statement to the contrary is false. Look at the regulations. The future regulations are still 100% put and take. The plan however is for folks such as yourself and show a little patience and let the trout grow for a few years before harvest. It makes little sense to stock a trout and then harvest it tomorrow. The gas alone costs more than buying the fish at the grocery store. Therefore...why not appreciate taking bigger trout and having a great recreational sport fishing experience.

Having patience does not mean you have to wait every year...for once we establish regular stocking programs we will have a constant yearly supply of larger trout to bonk if wanted.

The current regulations are 12 inch...I am not sure how you could possibly call that trophy and catch and release. The improved regulations would be 20 inch. 20 inch rainbow are not trophy sized. These lakes grow fish over 30 inches...over 10 lbs. The only reason 20 inch fish seem monsterous in Alberta is because current regs promote instant harvest. A little patience goes a long ways insofar as letting mother nature grow the trout versus a commercial feed pellet. As catch rates have gone up dramatically...I question you logic as to why things are so bad. Fishing here will go from fair to great with the implemented new regs.

I know it may be hard to think a few years in advance as often we live in the here and now but have patience...growing fish bigger is a really good thing. While they grow...you can still catch them and put em back to grow bigger.

Cheers

Sun

My Father exercises a staggered fishing approach which makes a lot of sense and something in this thread reminded me of it. For example, this year he will fish only lakes a,b and c, next year d,e and f, the following year lake g and h, then the next year back to a,b and c. He also instilled in me a limit within a limit of both fish size and quantity.

[FOTW]

I don't believe it has been mentioned yet, But people need to realize it would only be the first few years you would probably not be able to take a fish home.

Stocking #1 - 1st year
Stocking #2 - 2nd year
Stocking #3 3rd year
Stocking #4 and now stocking #1 is at keep size
Stocking #5 And now stocking #2 is at Keep size.
So on and so forth

See the trend?
Now of course my figures are rough as I do not know the growth to age ratio but people can get the jist of my message.

[Sundancefisher]

I don't believe it has been mentioned yet, But people need to realize it would only be the first few years you would probably not be able to take a fish home.

Stocking #1 - 1st year
Stocking #2 - 2nd year
Stocking #3 3rd year
Stocking #4 and now stocking #1 is at keep size
Stocking #5 And now stocking #2 is at Keep size.
So on and so forth

See the trend?
Now of course my figures are rough as I do not know the growth to age ratio but people can get the jist of my message.

True enough...however the trout surviving previous stockings before Stocking #1 will grow in size prior to that date...so there will be some to harvest in the interim period. While many will be harvested before the rules at a smaller size...the remaining survivors will grow!

Cheers

Sun

[goldscud]

hunter49 and 75ft arborist: Are Cutthroats not an acceptable replacement for rainbows? They are very close genetically and easier to catch. What is the problem with them?

[FOTW]

True enough...however the trout surviving previous stockings before Stocking #1 will grow in size prior to that date...so there will be some to harvest in the interim period. While many will be harvested before the rules at a smaller size...the remaining survivors will grow!

Cheers

Sun

Ya, I was just trying to help out your proposal man. Haha

[jusfloatin]

It will be at least 3 years of Catch and Release then by the 4 year it will be dirty and over crowded but we will have a "Quality Fishery"

[mick35471]

mr. sundance sir -- like other poster i am 1 that read's and never respond's.
u have shown class and are a true fisher-person with knowledge of today and the future. u took fishermom's kid out as she never stop's to say thks .If that did not make u smile wow increadable. am a watcher and check out site daily( 1 of those watcher's not talker's ) but had to respond
u are a good man will sign though never fished kananaskis upper or lower .
keep up the good work and take care.

[Sundancefisher]

It will be at least 3 years of Catch and Release then by the 4 year it will be dirty and over crowded but we will have a "Quality Fishery"

jusfloatin...

If you truly think that these regulations will so drastically increase crowding and litter than clearly by your own admission you feel these regulations will be a huge success and welcomed by all those that will be fishing there. I applaud you for this endorsement.

I challenge you then Sir to step up your game like I do and lead by example in keeping not just this park but all parks clean. Don't be afraid to pack other peoples garbage out. People keep places clean that are clean. I also challenge you to take advantage of our many AOF friendships and participate in car poolings whenever possible to alleviate any traffic congestion concerns. Also I hope that maybe the small businesses out there will see some benefits. I like helping small businesses especially if providing a service that benefits fishermen!

As for waiting for awesome fishing...if that was the complete truth...you betcha I will do that. If you feel that these regulations are not warranted...then that means by your logic there are tons of trout remaining to be caught versus our premise for these regulations stating many trout get vacuumed out before having a change to grow to a more challenging and larger table eating size. Or as you mentioned before...you just love catching 12 inch trout. There are plenty of places to still do that...but super limited locations to improve a fishery so dramatically as this simple regulation change will do.

Anyways...if you are correct and there are still lots of trout left...then in fact 20 inchers will be available in 1 or 2 years versus 4. Still I suppose if 4 is the right number...then I will just have to suffer through years of excellent fishing putting 12, 14, 16, 18 inch cutthroats back to grow until they reach harvestable size. Delaying harvest is a smart use of natures resources and our taxes.

Cheers

Sun

P.S. Stay warm this weekend.. Brrrrrrrr.

[Sundancefisher]

260 signatures so far.

Many people are taking the few minutes to sign which is great.

[Sundancefisher]

Bump

265

[Daceminnow]

Trout Unlimited, with funding from the Fish and Wildlife Division of Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, has an employment opportunity for a person to conduct a creel survey on Upper Kananaskis Lake on weekends and holidays from late May to the end of September 2011. This person will be responsible for interviewing anglers to obtain information on: 1) time spent fishing, 2) numbers, sizes and species of fish caught and 3) measuring lengths of harvested fish. In addition, the person will provide information to anglers regarding identification of the sport fish in the lake and the proposed fishing regulation changes for Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes



Well they've found their man and this survey is currently being conducted Saturdays and Sundays at Upper Kananaskis throughout the summer. Nice guy, I've chatted with him a few times already.



http://www.aspb.ab.ca/jobs/show/772


Dace

[Sundancefisher]

Trout Unlimited, with funding from the Fish and Wildlife Division of Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, has an employment opportunity for a person to conduct a creel survey on Upper Kananaskis Lake on weekends and holidays from late May to the end of September 2011. This person will be responsible for interviewing anglers to obtain information on: 1) time spent fishing, 2) numbers, sizes and species of fish caught and 3) measuring lengths of harvested fish. In addition, the person will provide information to anglers regarding identification of the sport fish in the lake and the proposed fishing regulation changes for Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes



Well they've found their man and this survey is currently being conducted Saturdays and Sundays at Upper Kananaskis throughout the summer. Nice guy, I've chatted with him a few times already.



http://www.aspb.ab.ca/jobs/show/772


Dace


I have done that type of job before. It is funny how some people look worried as the approach in their boat...seeing someone official with a clip board.

Then when you tell them you are just asking questions...they look relieved.

[boot]

Well they've found their man and this survey is currently being conducted Saturdays and Sundays at Upper Kananaskis throughout the summer. Nice guy, I've chatted with him a few times already.



http://www.aspb.ab.ca/jobs/show/772


Dace

I met the guy too and he was super friendly. Dace, do you know what they're doing with the information? From my understanding, they're collecting the data to evaluate whether or not to continue stocking the 12 inch fish or go back to stocking smaller fish (12 inch fish being much more expensive to stock). I'm just not sure how the data (# of fish caught, size, adipose fin, time spent fishing) factors into whether the 12 inch stocking is successful.

[boot]

Sundance, how does this petition work? Is there a cut off time where someone officially sends in the petition? Do we need an "x" number of signatures before it can be put forth?

[ADIDAFish]

I spoke with the guy doing the study as well when I was out there a week ago. He said he was very surprised at the number of people that support the "quality" idea. He thought people would be mad at not being able to keep the smaller fish.

[Sundancefisher]

Sundance, how does this petition work? Is there a cut off time where someone officially sends in the petition? Do we need an "x" number of signatures before it can be put forth?

The purpose of the petition is only to get the government biologists to evaluate the potential...they obviously saw enough interest and now will look at all the variables they normally look at when assessing regulation changes.

Part of that is clearly identifying users at the lake. I say it never hurts to sign the petition or email F&W with your support.

The petition was never to make it happen instantaneously. It is a process...like any government process.

Still if anyone can ever get a job doing a creel census...do it...especially an awesome location like Upper K.