Poll on Proposed Fishing Regulation Changes for Kananakis Lakes

[HunterDave]

Do You Support A Proposed Fishing Regulation Change For Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes?

Current regulations - "Open all year-Trout (except bull trout) limit 3; Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout over 30 cm; Bait Ban."

Proposed Regulations - "Open all year-Trout (except bull trout) limit 1; Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout over 50 cm; Bait Ban."

Additional information and discussion about this subject can be found at:

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=77783

[birchy]

Wholeheartedly.

[jusfloatin]

bump

[birchy]

Ttt

[BobLoblaw]

Absotively posilutely!!!

[Willowtrail]

Fished it for the first time this fall. Plan on spending a week there this year and making it an annual adventure. Definetly agree on the change. Love the opportunity to catch a trophy Bull for a reproduction.

[Dust1n]

i agree 100% if u wanna keep fish go to the frozen food section at your local store or go to a stalked pond that can be restalked 2 times a year dont keep our native trophy sized fish!

[HunterDave]

i agree 100% if u wanna keep fish go to the frozen food section at your local store or go to a stalked pond that can be restalked 2 times a year dont keep our native trophy sized fish!

:huh: That sounds like a disagree. :confused:

[jusfloatin]

I wonder how many of people realize that the introduction of these proposed changes will make this lake a catch and release lake for a minimum of 2 years with a better chance of it be 3 years.

[some guy]

What I realise is that I must release anything under 50 cm. Not in 2 years. Not in 3 years. But as soon as the new rules come into effect. I can KEEP anything over 50 cm. Not in 2 years. Not in 3 years. But as soon as the new rules come into effect.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[jusfloatin]

What I realise is that I must release anything under 50 cm. Not in 2 years. Not in 3 years. But as soon as the new rules come into effect. I can KEEP anything over 50 cm. Not in 2 years. Not in 3 years. But as soon as the new rules come into effect.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Correct except you can only keep one and no bulls period as you know.

[Sundancefisher]

Correct except you can only keep one and no bulls period as you know.

Why not keep the debate on the other thread... Saves me correcting the facts in more than one place :-)

There has been trout stocked in the last 4 years. Any of those survivors will be on their way to 50 cm. Patience is not so difficult if you realize the long term benefits. It seems to be short sighted to take a trout just after stocking from the hatchery instead of letting them grow a bit more. On the other hand...the other thread listed tons of water where they still stock the small fish and you can harvest them...still with pellets in their guts.

These regulations are NOT catch and release. Trying to twist the facts to imply that it is catch and release somehow...seems to be misleading.

These are put and take regulations. Pure and simple... Just improving the overall quality of the fishery for everyone to benefit. Totally everyone will benefit if one is not short sighted.

IMHO

[Sundancefisher]

Correct except you can only keep one and no bulls period as you know.

But the ONE is 5-6 times more fish that the 3 you can kill today.

So where is the deficit you seem to be implying? I strongly support not killing bull trout. They definitely bring a smile to people's faces when the catch one and they just can't sustain an appreciable harvest as history has short. These adfluvial/lake bull trout are very rare in Alberta. Enjoy eating the 20 inch cutthroat.

[chubbdarter]

note to self
chubbdarter....keep repeating....
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything

[Sundancefisher]

But the ONE is 5-6 times more fish that the 3 you can kill today.

So where is the deficit you seem to be implying? I strongly support not killing bull trout. They definitely bring a smile to people's faces when the catch one and they just can't sustain an appreciable harvest as history has short. These adfluvial/lake bull trout are very rare in Alberta. Enjoy eating the 20 inch cutthroat.

Actually I meant one twenty incher is worth 5-6 12 inchers. The math of 1 twenty incher can be twice the weight of the 3 - 12 inchers people are catching now.

Also the bull trout are needed to keep the sucker population down. As everyone knows that fish Chain Lakes down south...they put some bulls in there to eat the huge sucker population down a bit. How many suckers are caught there? I wonder how the bulls are doing in Chain. I have not heard many people talking about catching them there.

[trainerdave]

Caught 2 bullies one day two summers ago in Chain lakes. none since.far fewer suckers there now but it appears they are on the rise again so perhaps they could stock a few Bulls again...Back to Kananaskis...it would be nice to not have to drive in to the kootenays to catch a decent trout-most people probably feel the same by the looks of the poll so far...D.

[Russ C]

Why not keep the debate on the other thread... Saves me correcting the facts in more than one place :-)

There has been trout stocked in the last 4 years. Any of those survivors will be on their way to 50 cm. Patience is not so difficult if you realize the long term benefits. It seems to be short sighted to take a trout just after stocking from the hatchery instead of letting them grow a bit more. On the other hand...the other thread listed tons of water where they still stock the small fish and you can harvest them...still with pellets in their guts.

These regulations are NOT catch and release. Trying to twist the facts to imply that it is catch and release somehow...seems to be misleading.

These are put and take regulations. Pure and simple... Just improving the overall quality of the fishery for everyone to benefit. Totally everyone will benefit if one is not short sighted.

IMHO

100% agree with Sundancefisher. I think that jusfloatin is stirring the pot. Don't get me wrong I think it's good to voice a different opinion, but only if you have some what of an informed knowledge base. Jusfloatin what are your opinions based on? Do you have scientific facts to prove your claims (I have read your opinions on another board as well as on this one) or are you just throwing out a bunch of comments to stir the pot? I don't see what you think is wrong with having larger fish to catch in a few lakes in this province when there are so many more lakes in Alberta that are catch and keep. It's looks to me that you fish strickly to eat (just my opinion from reading your comments) which is fine as long as it's done with in the rules and regulations which I'm sure you do. But there are many lakes available to you that you can take a few fish home to have for dinner. K lakes will still be that way as well only your meal will be larger. There are only a handful of lakes in Alberta that are managed as trophy lakes, and what over 250 that are catch and keep. There are alot of anglers in Alberta that practice catch and release which is their right under the rules and regulations for the water body they are fishing. I am one of the catch and release fisherman, so I promise that when I go to K lakes and catch a 50 cm plus fish I will release it so that you can catch it to take it home.

[Fisher_man#1]

Well spoken, Im will you on the last part of your message.

I totally agree!!!!


100% agree with Sundancefisher. I think that jusfloatin is stirring the pot. Don't get me wrong I think it's good to voice a different opinion, but only if you have some what of an informed knowledge base. Jusfloatin what are your opinions based on? Do you have scientific facts to prove your claims (I have read your opinions on another board as well as on this one) or are you just throwing out a bunch of comments to stir the pot? I don't see what you think is wrong with having larger fish to catch in a few lakes in this province when there are so many more lakes in Alberta that are catch and keep. It's looks to me that you fish strickly to eat (just my opinion from reading your comments) which is fine as long as it's done with in the rules and regulations which I'm sure you do. But there are many lakes available to you that you can take a few fish home to have for dinner. K lakes will still be that way as well only your meal will be larger. There are only a handful of lakes in Alberta that are managed as trophy lakes, and what over 250 that are catch and keep. There are alot of anglers in Alberta that practice catch and release which is their right under the rules and regulations for the water body they are fishing. I am one of the catch and release fisherman, so I promise that when I go to K lakes and catch a 50 cm plus fish I will release it so that you can catch it to take it home.

[HunterDave]

100% agree with Sundancefisher. I think that jusfloatin is stirring the pot. Don't get me wrong I think it's good to voice a different opinion, but only if you have some what of an informed knowledge base. Jusfloatin what are your opinions based on? Do you have scientific facts to prove your claims (I have read your opinions on another board as well as on this one) or are you just throwing out a bunch of comments to stir the pot? I don't see what you think is wrong with having larger fish to catch in a few lakes in this province when there are so many more lakes in Alberta that are catch and keep. It's looks to me that you fish strickly to eat (just my opinion from reading your comments) which is fine as long as it's done with in the rules and regulations which I'm sure you do. But there are many lakes available to you that you can take a few fish home to have for dinner. K lakes will still be that way as well only your meal will be larger. There are only a handful of lakes in Alberta that are managed as trophy lakes, and what over 250 that are catch and keep. There are alot of anglers in Alberta that practice catch and release which is their right under the rules and regulations for the water body they are fishing. I am one of the catch and release fisherman, so I promise that when I go to K lakes and catch a 50 cm plus fish I will release it so that you can catch it to take it home.

Before you pro fellas start calling someone out that is against your proposal you'd better have a good look at what has been posted on this thread so far. I haven't seen many facts presented anywhere on this entire thread from anyone supporting this proposal. The facts that I've seen are either inaccurate, misleading or not facts at all and merely opinions.

For example: 94% of stocked fish are caught right away (not true)....fish are caught with pellets still in their belly (yeah, if you are there in September or October when they are stocked)........A quality fishery means being able to catch bigger fish easier (opinion)...... families and kids are going to like catching and keeping one bigger fish over several smaller ones (opinion)......etc, etc, etc. I could sit here all day and poke holes in a ton of stuff that has been posted but I'm not campaigning.

The FACT is that the Kan Lakes already hold the size of fish (and bigger) that are in the proposal. Changing the regs would just make it EASIER for grown ups to catch keeper sized fish and harder for kids to. Everything else is Fluff, Smoke and Mirrors. If you aren't up to the challenge of catching the bigger fish now then all that I can say is try harder.

[GaryF]

Hunterdave, How many times a year do you fish at the K Lakes? What kind of gear do you fish them with?

[jusfloatin]

100% agree with Sundancefisher. I think that jusfloatin is stirring the pot. Don't get me wrong I think it's good to voice a different opinion, but only if you have some what of an informed knowledge base. Jusfloatin what are your opinions based on? Do you have scientific facts to prove your claims (I have read your opinions on another board as well as on this one) or are you just throwing out a bunch of comments to stir the pot? I don't see what you think is wrong with having larger fish to catch in a few lakes in this province when there are so many more lakes in Alberta that are catch and keep. It's looks to me that you fish strickly to eat (just my opinion from reading your comments) which is fine as long as it's done with in the rules and regulations which I'm sure you do. But there are many lakes available to you that you can take a few fish home to have for dinner. K lakes will still be that way as well only your meal will be larger. There are only a handful of lakes in Alberta that are managed as trophy lakes, and what over 250 that are catch and keep. There are alot of anglers in Alberta that practice catch and release which is their right under the rules and regulations for the water body they are fishing. I am one of the catch and release fisherman, so I promise that when I go to K lakes and catch a 50 cm plus fish I will release it so that you can catch it to take it home.

First off let me assure you my intent is not to stir the pot as you put it but rather voice my concerns of what I feel is a lake truly deserving of intense discussions of any proposed changes.

I am very protective of this and the lower K as I have been fishing the upper/lower K on a regular bases for at least 10 years and in the last year alone you could see me and my all white runabout out there at least a couple dozen times.
Yes I do/will keep what I am legally allowed to.

You ask me for scientific facts to back up my claims are you meaning
where I say there will be a big influx of new people fishing there because of these changes (would it not change if it was to turn into the "Quality Fishery" you keep hearing)
where I say with them that there will be an increase of litter ( when in time has litter problems go down when more people come)
where I say that about it turning into a C&R for the first 3 years,( it will seem like that because there are 50+ out there but I would not expectto catch 1 every time you go out)



Sundance as for your plea about Correcting me.
I have called you on several of my posts where you have misquoted, read into or just posted untruths of where I have fished to how much I enjoyed it.
You have taken snippets from my comments and embellished them to create a totally different meaning to suit your case.
I have no problem discussing views but when I have to spend more time correcting your post of what I supposedly have posted it is time to withdraw from this thread.

The reason I decided to first post in this thread was because of my concern for a lake that I consider to be a hair away from paradise and what my thoughts of what would happen to the jewel if these changes were to come into effect.

If there were sufficient amount of officers out there checking possessions and size limits we would not need these changes to start with.

[HunterDave]

Hunterdave, How many times a year do you fish at the K Lakes? What kind of gear do you fish them with?

None, but as long as my fishing license dollars are paying for the fish that are being put in there I figure that I have a right to comment on the proposed reg change. And, from a moral stand point I figure that I have an obligation to comment.

What's your point? That this should be considered a regional issue and if you are not from around there stay out of it? The last that I heard the Kan Lakes are available to all Albertans to fish not just the few that want to turn it into their own private fishery in their backyard.

[Sundancefisher]

First off let me assure you my intent is not to stir the pot as you put it but rather voice my concerns of what I feel is a lake truly deserving of intense discussions of any proposed changes.

I am very protective of this and the lower K as I have been fishing the upper/lower K on a regular bases for at least 10 years and in the last year alone you could see me and my all white runabout out there at least a couple dozen times.
Yes I do/will keep what I am legally allowed to.

You ask me for scientific facts to back up my claims are you meaning
where I say there will be a big influx of new people fishing there because of these changes (would it not change if it was to turn into the "Quality Fishery" you keep hearing)
where I say with them that there will be an increase of litter ( when in time has litter problems go down when more people come)
where I say that about it turning into a C&R for the first 3 years,( it will seem like that because there are 50+ out there but I would not expectto catch 1 every time you go out)



Sundance as for your plea about Correcting me.
I have called you on several of my posts where you have misquoted, read into or just posted untruths of where I have fished to how much I enjoyed it.
You have taken snippets from my comments and embellished them to create a totally different meaning to suit your case.
I have no problem discussing views but when I have to spend more time correcting your post of what I supposedly have posted it is time to withdraw from this thread.

The reason I decided to first post in this thread was because of my concern for a lake that I consider to be a hair away from paradise and what my thoughts of what would happen to the jewel if these changes were to come into effect.

If there were sufficient amount of officers out there checking possessions and size limits we would not need these changes to start with.

jusfloatin

I too have provided information to you to corrected your assumptions which are the reasons you are negative on this idea. I am also never opposed to correcting myself and admitting when I erred. Hence may past responses on that. Still the facts do speak for themselves. Just the common sense aspect of this discussion is strongly for the new regs. Even many of your personal negatives show proof positive as to the intended outcome of the regulations.

Your concerns to date...

1

Environmental impact to lake: There is no impact on the lake environment as a result of these regs. I get the impression you spend a lot of time out there. Are you a park employee? If so...I am jealous. As these lakes have always had fish in them there is nothing special. As you already approve of the stocking program for 12 inchers that shows you don't have a problem with those introductions to the lake. Allowing nature to grow them bigger after stocking will not make them eat anything different...just make them bigger.

2

Line up to off load and load the boat: I still have not hear of a ton of boat usage out here. Most people will either fish from shore, 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...albeit with not a lot of fish. That will soon change! If there is more people wanting to launch boats then all things being fair people will get along and launch their boats. If people help each other if will probably even go faster.

3

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. You can also car pool to get out there.

4

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! With all due respect...I don't feel it is fair to single out and say fishermen will destroy the park with litter. I am part of the solution and not the problem and always take a bag with me to pack out not only my litter but others as well. Bait litter is usually the primary source which is not used here. Most litter I find is from picnickers and hikers and NOT fishermen. Still lead by example. A clean park stays clean way easier.

5

Traffic: Kind of redundant to parking as the two come hand in hand. Still remembering this is a long ways from Calgary still...just the closest suitable lake for implementing these regs...there will hopefully be more people. If the regs are positive to the fishery then we will have more people fishing there. 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. There is lots of parking that is often empty. If we get more fishermen coming then they can use some of those unfilled parking spots.

6

Dirty water: What is the motor law and how many motor boats do you see on the lake typically? 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 reams 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. :-). This is also a very weak argument as I have seen many hikers stepping off the trail around the lake and not to smell a flower. Again...if looking at the arguments...this one is tough to agree with.

7. You also have stated you like fishing where others are not. That means you like it less crowded which is understandable. You are so far only applying arguments that are increased usage points which means that you agree these regulations will increase the numbers of people fishing. This and only this argument that you have provided so far is IMHO an obvious fact we can't ignore. I agree with you...there will be more people using the Park so it is true you will have more people fishing around you. Now the question is...is it 5 people a day more, 10 people a day more...or 25 people a day more. Remember it is still further from Calgary than the Bow River. I strongly suspect...while day trips will increase...people using the campgrounds will use the lake more for fishing also. While that will not increase traffic etc...it will increase on the water fishing time.

8. Lake will be catch and release for a while: This is only partially true... There are still trout from past stockings in the lakes and those will have a chance to continue to grow. Once nature has done its role and raise the trout up to 20 inches we can then harvest. There will be some available short term with an increasing percentage available long term. These regulations will also increase the available number of trout for catching and therefore increase catch rates over all. This was proved with the 7 times increase in catch rates between the last regulation change that effectively did the same thing being proposed now with the exception of going from 3 to 1 fish limit (still one 20 inch trout is twice the weight of 3 smaller ones) and 20 inch minimum size up from 12 inch.

9. Rampant poaching decimating the trout populations: Now I am reading your post above. It is hard to estimate how many early stocked trout are poached versus just heavily targeted on a daily basis after stocking. There is a mentality of greed amongst some people regardless of the commodity they are coveting. That being said when there is a yearly supply of trout to catch that people can catch with more confidence...then there will be less drive to take it before someone else does. There will be better sense of being a protector of the resource rather than an illegal exploiter. With an increase in anglers also comes an increase in eyes and cell phones. Poachers like to operate on a lake that no one else fishes much. Lake like Mt. Lorette get targeted hard after stocking (decimated within weeks) because it is the way the regulations have educated Albertans to act. We stock and they you kill as fast as possible. Little short, medium and long term value to the stocking practices save for the few first out to claim their share...

In summary...

Saying you want to stop improving the fishery because an extra number of fishermen make the trek to UKL and LKL to fish is IMHO a very weak argument. There are tons more hikers, picnickers and other users than fishermen. It is a multi use area which is different than the single use lake like Bullshead. To preach reduced usage of the park is somewhat selfish.http://www.tpr.alberta.ca/parks/kananaskis/permitted_act.asp . How many additional fishermen do you think will fish these two large lakes on an average daily basis?

I guess the frustrating part of your arguments is that they are based upon weak assumptions and/or selfish reasons...versus the improvement of the overall fishery for the average future user. Therefore I know you can not be swayed on this topic due to the personal nature of your position on the topic.

I still believe you are free to take this position and I am sure you have voted on the poll accordingly. If there is any half truths or you take exception to what I have taken from your posts to date...please explain in detail as with anything...communication is key but without much facts in your posts we can only deduce your intended meaning. I understand your overall comment about wanting to protect this area...but sorry to tell you...you have no choice but to share it. It is public land and a public park.

Sun

[Tungsten,]

Before you pro fellas start calling someone out that is against your proposal you'd better have a good look at what has been posted on this thread so far. I haven't seen many facts presented anywhere on this entire thread from anyone supporting this proposal. The facts that I've seen are either inaccurate, misleading or not facts at all and merely opinions.

.

Bullshead reservoir,also dozens of BC lakes with the same regulations.

Go fish some of these lakes next season,I think then you'll understand.

[Sundancefisher]

Before you pro fellas start calling someone out that is against your proposal you'd better have a good look at what has been posted on this thread so far. I haven't seen many facts presented anywhere on this entire thread from anyone supporting this proposal. The facts that I've seen are either inaccurate, misleading or not facts at all and merely opinions.

For example: 94% of stocked fish are caught right away (not true)....fish are caught with pellets still in their belly (yeah, if you are there in September or October when they are stocked)........A quality fishery means being able to catch bigger fish easier (opinion)...... families and kids are going to like catching and keeping one bigger fish over several smaller ones (opinion)......etc, etc, etc. I could sit here all day and poke holes in a ton of stuff that has been posted but I'm not campaigning.

The FACT is that the Kan Lakes already hold the size of fish (and bigger) that are in the proposal. Changing the regs would just make it EASIER for grown ups to catch keeper sized fish and harder for kids to. Everything else is Fluff, Smoke and Mirrors. If you aren't up to the challenge of catching the bigger fish now then all that I can say is try harder.

No one is hiding anything. 94% of all trout kept were from the same year stocking. That is the actual fact. I just misread it but corrected myself when it was pointed out. In debates...some times that happens. Is this number a negative to the equation? No...in fact it remains a strong positive for implementing the proposed regs. It means that a huge percentage of the fish get harvested immediately after stocking. That means they are extremely easy to catch and if we just let mother nature feed em for a while...we can harvest bigger fish while retaining much higher catch rates in the interim. If we think about your comment later that you are a tax payer and have a right to comment...purely from a cash flow management perspective...can you see the logic and value in a delayed harvest, increased recreational value and in the end an increase in the size of the harvestable cutthroat to someone wishing to retain one?

It is fact that many lakes people target immediately after stocking...with in two weeks...some smaller lakes are fished out. How is this value to your tax payer dollars? How is this value to recreational fishing...when these lakes are devoid of fish. The only thing UKL and LKL have going for them is shear size. That is also the benefit to meeting the requirements for a quality fishery in an area with extremely limited options for such a fishery.

Catching bigger fish easier is not an opinion but a stated fact from anyone that has fished a quality fishery like Bullshead. Those of us that have fished it can say without a doubt the fishing has improved. Many that argued some of the same concerns against these regs in Bullshead are enjoying such awesome fishing that the fight to switch it back would be impossible.

No one can argue that people like catching fish when fishing in UKL and LKL. So buy your argument against there being no facts...missed the key fact that when the 12 inch minimum size limit was instituted that the catch rates increased 7 times. So retaining fish in the lake longer...delaying harvest and letting mother nature grow them to 20 inches will only increase catch rates... I can not see the argument working that says increasing the numbers of fish in the lake would decrease catch rates.

The fact is that the lake CAN hold bigger fish and does grow a few...but delaying harvest would allow the minimum size to increase just as the 12 inch rule accomplished at the time. That would mean an increasingly larger number of bigger cutts. This is one of the reasons for the lakes meeting the requirements for a quality fishery.

For someone that is not campaigning...you are doing a good job of trying.

[Sundancefisher]

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

for those of you that don't want to switch over the main debate thread.

[chubbdarter]

Bullshead reservoir,also dozens of BC lakes with the same regulations.

Go fish some of these lakes next season,I think then you'll understand.

the greatest rainbowtrout lake in B.C. is not managed under these regulations.


Go fish this lake NOW,I think then you'll understand.

[chubbdarter]

i would post a link from another site that posted some real facts but it was deleted and refreshed i see.......sad when some peeps get special needs help.

[steelhead]

I disagree strongly with these regulations as.....




.....The cheaper you make it for the SRD to manage these lakes, ie. less stocking, more rules to manage, you are also taking money out of the system making a lower budget for next year. Nice to come up with quality lakes, but if the budget keeps getting slashed (as its at its breaking point now) and the gov reduces the budget to equal its previous expenditures, these quality options will degrade all other fisheries and enforcement spending.

You all want quality fisheries???


How about a petition to get more money for enforcement and larger stocking quotas for many species, not just trout. You will see bigger fish that way also. Get moe people fishing walleyes and there will be less catch and bonkers at your favorite LOL, quality fishery. If trout are the easiest fish to catch in this province, Make the other species easier and more plentiful to catch and draw people away from the trout. That equals quality fishery a hundred fold


Your options take money, not save money and will harm all our fisheries.. I disagree with that and will vote no.


If you cant get alot of big rainbows and larger fish out of K lakes, yer not getting your fly lines down deep enough. Your quality fish are already in there, but with it being such a big and deep lake, your fishing tactics may not help you get them!


Petition for more spending on enforcement and dollars. Richest province in Canada and it has the poorest track record for its fishing and conservation enforcement. Then the bigger fish will come. It works everywhere else, but here. All other provinces actually, but here. I guess no one here ever looks at what other provinces do, except BC. they have what they have from big spending and enforcement.


your focus is wrong for everything


STEELHEAD

[Sundancefisher]

I disagree strongly with these regulations as.....




.....The cheaper you make it for the SRD to manage these lakes, ie. less stocking, more rules to manage, you are also taking money out of the system making a lower budget for next year. Nice to come up with quality lakes, but if the budget keeps getting slashed (as its at its breaking point now) and the gov reduces the budget to equal its previous expenditures, these quality options will degrade all other fisheries and enforcement spending.

You all want quality fisheries???


How about a petition to get more money for enforcement and larger stocking quotas for many species, not just trout. You will see bigger fish that way also. Get moe people fishing walleyes and there will be less catch and bonkers at your favorite LOL, quality fishery. If trout are the easiest fish to catch in this province, Make the other species easier and more plentiful to catch and draw people away from the trout. That equals quality fishery a hundred fold


Your options take money, not save money and will harm all our fisheries.. I disagree with that and will vote no.


If you cant get alot of big rainbows and larger fish out of K lakes, yer not getting your fly lines down deep enough. Your quality fish are already in there, but with it being such a big and deep lake, your fishing tactics may not help you get them!


Petition for more spending on enforcement and dollars. Richest province in Canada and it has the poorest track record for its fishing and conservation enforcement. Then the bigger fish will come. It works everywhere else, but here. All other provinces actually, but here. I guess no one here ever looks at what other provinces do, except BC. they have what they have from big spending and enforcement.


your focus is wrong for everything


STEELHEAD



Your budget question is hard to know. Can you provide information that shows that when Bullshead implemented the new rules and attracted a huge fishermen following that somehow the system was financially harmed. Please provide some facts as if true I will be emailing my MLA... Otherwise...it is just a theory. I remember the opposite...after regs came into being...enforcement increased and not targeted enforcement still prevails but tons of eyes are keeping those greedy people more honest.

I wholeheartedly agree that we need more money for enforcement but also regional and local fish population studies.

I disagree that we need to stocking more...stocking implies an over harvest and an unsustainable fishery. We can not bandaid bad fisheries management through stocking. Stocking as a put and take trout resource has been applied for years and is an expected part of the system. Stocking to introduce stock for the first time (such as walleye in a lake or trout from the Bow into the Red Deer) is an applied management technique. Allowing over harvest of a natural walleye or pike lake population with the mindset to stock our way out of a problem... I am not so enamored with.

Your assumption that there are loads of big fish in the lakes already is not shown in gill netting data. There was not a large number caught in UKL so your assumption is wrong. There were only 50 rainbows measured in the LKL that were large. The lakes show they can grow them big...but harvest is quick.

Your comment that everything can be fixed...including bigger fish through enforcement...does not hold water IMHO. Catching a few poachers...while helpful is far from a critical piece of the problem. Still don't get me wrong...start a petition demanding more money spend on enforcement through an INCREASE to the budget to accommodate it and I am signing!

Sun

[steelhead]

sun wrote....

Your assumption that there are loads of big fish in the lakes already is not shown in gill netting data. There was not a large number caught in UKL so your assumption is wrong. There were only 50 rainbows measured in the LKL that were large. The lakes show they can grow them big...but harvest is quick.



How deep of water were the nets placed? how many times a year and for how many years were the netting done to have a proper analysis done? How many different areas of the lake were the nets put in? Were those big fish released unharmed?

Ok, just an edit, I looked at your data that you use. Way too flawed to get anywhere near a fair estimate on the fish sizes in those lakes. I move to have that flawed data exempt from these talks and your petition.


I would say your assumptions are wrong and with flawed data.


Our fisheries budget gets smaller every year. One indicator that with more rules and regs and less spending on quality lakes, they dont need the money to enhance them, theyre doing it all on thier own, with less spending.


You also wrote....
I disagree that we need to stocking more...stocking implies an over harvest and an unsustainable fishery.

Theres not a fishery in Canada that is sustainable. Overharvest happens everywhere! So as many other provinces see it, stocking is the only way to go.


Alberta has done enough testing and fiddling with our fisheries. All to be proven to be the wrong approach. Take some examples from other provinces and spend money and raise enforcement.



Why dont we all band together and petition for more money and enforcement. Theres no way in Hades you will get quality anywhere in this province without it!


Start there, and in a few years, i'm sure everyone will sign your petition with no "nays" on the poll.


STEELHEAD

[Sundancefisher]

How deep of water were the nets placed? how many times a year and for how many years were the netting done to have a proper analysis done? How many different areas of the lake were the nets put in? Were those big fish released unharmed?

Ok, just an edit, I looked at your data that you use. Way too flawed to get anywhere near a fair estimate on the fish sizes in those lakes. I move to have that flawed data exempt from these talks and your petition.


I would say your assumptions are wrong and with flawed data.


Our fisheries budget gets smaller every year. One indicator that with more rules and regs and less spending on quality lakes, they dont need the money to enhance them, theyre doing it all on thier own, with less spending.


You also wrote....
I disagree that we need to stocking more...stocking implies an over harvest and an unsustainable fishery.

Theres not a fishery in Canada that is sustainable. Overharvest happens everywhere! So as many other provinces see it, stocking is the only way to go.


Alberta has done enough testing and fiddling with our fisheries. All to be proven to be the wrong approach. Take some examples from other provinces and spend money and raise enforcement.



Why dont we all band together and petition for more money and enforcement. Theres no way in Hades you will get quality anywhere in this province without it!


Start there, and in a few years, i'm sure everyone will sign your petition with no "nays" on the poll.


STEELHEAD

I am sorry you agree with scientific data from Provincial biologists. Not much I can say. Gill netting is a very good technique to see what is available. Unfortunately it is not a method with high survivorship...therefore it is used sparingly.

While the budget does looking annoying every year... Please provide data to show money is coming out of they system and where...is it expense accounts, studies, stocking, staffing etc. "Your budget question is hard to know. Can you provide information that shows that when Bullshead implemented the new rules and attracted a huge fishermen following that somehow the system was financially harmed. Please provide some facts as if true I will be emailing my MLA... Otherwise...it is just a theory. I remember the opposite...after regs came into being...enforcement increased and not targeted enforcement still prevails but tons of eyes are keeping those greedy people more honest." You did not answer this. If you think this a conspiracy to save money...how so? The initiative are started by fishermen...not F&W. It was actually an uphill battle to make the first two...same as this one. If it was a conspiracy...why don't F&W just make it a rule across the whole Province? Answer...because from a management perspective it makes more sense in some places than all places.

We can disagree on the stocking idea. I feel F&W needs to adjust the limits to account for an allowable harvest. Thereby the fishery is sustainable. Your generalized comment applies when the basic principles are not followed due to improper science, unexpected increase in harvest (not accounting for human population over time versus limits), natural disaster, spawning success etc. The Bow River for instance is a fishery that does not get stocked. Does fine. The Crowsnest is not stocked. The Oldman is not stocked. All these fisheries are going well without stocking. A put and take lake with no natural spawning...requires stocking.

Let us know when you have that petition started to increase the enforcement budget as an ADDITIONAL expense item on the Provincial budget.

Cheers

Sun

[GaryF]

Hunterdave, I was just curious as to your interest in these lakes as you are so oppossed to the proposed changes. There are another 15 or so lakes and ponds within 30 mins of K lakes that also get stocked to pull fish from, so I guess I am just not sure why making regs on these 2 are a problem. If they stop having to put 34,000 fish into K lakes all the time, they can start putting more of those fish into other areas to be pulled out for those that need to keep what they catch.

I also pay my fee's for fishing, and I would much rather my money go into enforcement and more CO's than growing fish for ppl to stock freezers with. The govt doesn't raise deer and elk for the hunters, so why are we doing it for fish? If hunting was run the way that fishing is I am sure that you would get real upset and would want changes also.

[steelhead]

Sun wrote...


Answer...because from a management perspective it makes more sense in some places than all places.


So, in an area with an abundance of trout fishing in streams and lakes, Why does it make sense to make a quality fishery in K lakes? The rivers have huge fish too. Theres probably more trout anglers on the rivers than will be on that lake (and hiding from the watchfull eye of any enforcement). Now, I can understand a quality fishery on the prairies miles from quality trout, but why in the heartland of trout fishing? Keep the lakes for the kids to catch some dinks, the rivers are managed very well for the monsters they hold. On the prairies, good, in the mountains, bad.

The less they have to stock these lakes, the more eyes they have from anglers watching poachers, the more non-government agencies get involved the less the gov has to put money too. And, we see a lower budget. Pretty clear to me. its been getting lower in the last 15 years too. The less the gov has to do, the less they have to pay. Damn clear to me.

sun also wrote....

The Bow River for instance is a fishery that does not get stocked. Does fine. The Crowsnest is not stocked. The Oldman is not stocked. All these fisheries are going well without stocking. A put and take lake with no natural spawning...requires stocking.

They were all stocked at one time. With invasive species at the top of the list of invasives. They wanted a quality fishery back then too i guess.


You are using river ecosystems as an example to compare to lakes with no waterflow or a closed system. Your a BIO, you should know better. You cant compare the 2, at all, no way. That position doesnt stand, at all, no way. You just mentioned rivers, any lakes you care to share with the same successes as your river examples?


STEELHEAD

[chubbdarter]

im trying to find info now.....maybe the crow isnt stocked!!!! BUT isnt crowsnest lake stocked?
all the rivers mentioned above must have some escapement?
e.g. beavermines is stocked - beavermine's creek empties into the castle- the castle empties into the oldman.
the fish barrier at grotto is a joke

[Tungsten,]

the greatest rainbowtrout lake in B.C. is not managed under these regulations.


Go fish this lake NOW,I think then you'll understand.

This maybe true but for the lakes that do have these regs.Your chances of catching fish are excellent even for people that are not very experienced.

IMHO this is what its all about,nothing worse then spending a bunch of money on gas food and tackle only to be skunked.Then trying to explain to your 10 year old nephew why we didn't catch anything.

Now maybe you'll understand.

[HunterDave]

No one is hiding anything. 94% of all trout kept were from the same year stocking. That is the actual fact. I just misread it but corrected myself when it was pointed out. In debates...some times that happens. Is this number a negative to the equation? No...in fact it remains a strong positive for implementing the proposed regs. It means that a huge percentage of the fish get harvested immediately after stocking. That means they are extremely easy to catch and if we just let mother nature feed em for a while...we can harvest bigger fish while retaining much higher catch rates in the interim. If we think about your comment later that you are a tax payer and have a right to comment...purely from a cash flow management perspective...can you see the logic and value in a delayed harvest, increased recreational value and in the end an increase in the size of the harvestable cutthroat to someone wishing to retain one?

It is fact that many lakes people target immediately after stocking...with in two weeks...some smaller lakes are fished out. How is this value to your tax payer dollars? How is this value to recreational fishing...when these lakes are devoid of fish. The only thing UKL and LKL have going for them is shear size. That is also the benefit to meeting the requirements for a quality fishery in an area with extremely limited options for such a fishery.

Catching bigger fish easier is not an opinion but a stated fact from anyone that has fished a quality fishery like Bullshead. Those of us that have fished it can say without a doubt the fishing has improved. Many that argued some of the same concerns against these regs in Bullshead are enjoying such awesome fishing that the fight to switch it back would be impossible.

No one can argue that people like catching fish when fishing in UKL and LKL. So buy your argument against there being no facts...missed the key fact that when the 12 inch minimum size limit was instituted that the catch rates increased 7 times. So retaining fish in the lake longer...delaying harvest and letting mother nature grow them to 20 inches will only increase catch rates... I can not see the argument working that says increasing the numbers of fish in the lake would decrease catch rates.

The fact is that the lake CAN hold bigger fish and does grow a few...but delaying harvest would allow the minimum size to increase just as the 12 inch rule accomplished at the time. That would mean an increasingly larger number of bigger cutts. This is one of the reasons for the lakes meeting the requirements for a quality fishery.

For someone that is not campaigning...you are doing a good job of trying.

If your want anyone to take anything that you write seriously then provide supporting information to back it up. Just because you say something is a fact doesn't make it so. Case in point, earlier this week I questioned you about where the facts were to support your statement that 94% of stocked fish were immediately caught. You admitted that you could not provide the supporting info yet you still post it as a fact (see your statement in bold #1 above).

Bold #2 - Show me the supporting information for this fact and how what happens at a small lake compares to Kan Lakes. They are usually stocked late in the Fall and are much bigger lakes. I highly doubt that they would be fished out within two weeks of being stocked so IMO it does not apply.

Bold #3 - You are saying that if someone voices an opinion it is a stated fact?:confused: Ah....ya.....okay. :scared: So if someone tells me that they think a quality fishery means catching and keeping several "eater" sized fish it is a stated fact and I should post it as a stated fact on this thread? I don't think so.

Bold #4 - If they put the same number of fish in every year how are the catch rates going to increase? Where is the logic.....Because the fish are bigger more of them will be caught?

Bold #5 - I could accept this as fact if a study was done to determine what the ramifications were of having more larger fish in the lake.

As for me campaigning against this proposal, I was quite happy to stay in the shadows and even helped you to maintain your credibility by quietly and diplomatically correcting you when I noticed you stating something as fact that any reasonable person would know was not possible to determine.

I came onto this thread with an open mind and I would have gladly signed the petition to support this proposal if I thought that it was a good idea. However, I have not read anything on the thread other than it would make it easier for grown ups to catch bigger fish as a reason to sign it. Had it been full of facts and information to support your position I may have seen it differently.

Although I admire and respect your determination in lobbying for this proposal, without studying the social, economic and environmental impacts of it first, how can anyone support it? Has anyone even contacted SRD to determine what the impact would be of having more larger fish in the lakes? Or, why the current regulation is in place to allow people to catch "eater" sized fish? How would this newly proposed regulation effect tourism and the local economy? There is a ton of more information that you need in order to be taken seriously. I'm sorry, but IMHO right now it just sounds like a few good 'ol boys got together on a Friday night over a few wobbly pops and came up with a plan to help them catch bigger fish.

[chubbdarter]

This maybe true but for the lakes that do have these regs.Your chances of catching fish are excellent even for people that are not very experienced.

IMHO this is what its all about,nothing worse then spending a bunch of money on gas food and tackle only to be skunked.Then trying to explain to your 10 year old nephew why we didn't catch anything.

Now maybe you'll understand.

ive always understood 10 percent of the fisherman catch 90 percent of the fish....and the 10 percent increases when big fish are involved.

im sorry you need to explain to your nephew.

good luck fishing

[Tungsten,]

ive always understood 10 percent of the fisherman catch 90 percent of the fish....and the 10 percent increases when big fish are involved.

im sorry you need to explain to your nephew.

good luck fishing

So your saying if a lake has a bigger average size then more people catch fish?

good luck fishing to you also.

[steelhead]

chub


Fish from downstream of these lakes cannot go upstream and back into the lakes, but, fish in these lakes can move up and into any stream that flows into them. Kinda makes you think about how many fish in these closed systems make thier way downstream and are called as caught and kept or fished out by anglers. Maybee they just swam away? Hey, wait a sec!!! With that example, it would conclude that the oldman, and the Bow are stocked with trout. Whoodah thunk it!

Baitfish from these rivers and the many other varied species they hold cannot migrate into them creating closed systems. In smaller and small closed systems, (potholes and k lake examples) stocking is a required to maintain pop's due to angler harvest, bull trout eating stockies, pellicans, otters, cormorants, disease, starvation, and downstream movement, winter kill, summer kill, WOW thats alot of bad stuff to happen to stockies but in this province they call it fished out by baitchuckers. And, since thier trout, they are inclined to head for moving water and rivers, upstream or downstream. Flowing into and out of it yes, inside the lake, no.

Ever wonder if that Bow river rainbow may have came from k lakes? Maybee thats why theres an abundance of trout on the Bow river, they all came from the stocked lakes on the system. Interesting.

When the oldman dam was made, it became a closed system (we dont see walleyes in that lake and theres billions downstream), but, the river above held the great number of species of baitfish and forage in its system to thrive today. That is an example of a huge closed system. The higher up into the mountains a lake is made the less forage can be trapped as many species of baitfish do not agree with temperatures and sterile environments. Suckers, of course, are everywhere and tolerate alot. The suckers in K lakes have been there since the lakes inception as they were in the rivers to begin with. It just took a long time for the population to explode.


The size of the rivers and the amount of rivers in a closed system make a difference. K lakes, lots of small sterile rivers barely enough to promote spwaning. Oldman, many hundreds of miles of rivers and 3 larger rivers to feed it with many many spawning opps and a large nursery lake. Bullshead, one tiny lake, one mel****er runoff to feed it.

Funny thing a few buddies of mine thought of. With all the big fish in Bullshead requiring more oxygen to survive and in competition with decaying weeds, when it does winterkill, and i'm sure it will even with aeration ( many aerated lakes have winter and summer killed in this province) how many years will it take to catch any fish or one of quality size after such an accident? It wont be much of a quality lake then.


So, Suns example of rivers vs small closed systems does not fly, at all, no way. No matter what, a stocked lake will always have to be stocked. They are not sustainable. Unless they have a large healthy river system to spawn in and a large and varied forage base. None of which k lakes has.


STEELHEAD

[Sundancefisher]

Sun wrote...


Answer...because from a management perspective it makes more sense in some places than all places.


So, in an area with an abundance of trout fishing in streams and lakes, Why does it make sense to make a quality fishery in K lakes? The rivers have huge fish too. Theres probably more trout anglers on the rivers than will be on that lake (and hiding from the watchfull eye of any enforcement). Now, I can understand a quality fishery on the prairies miles from quality trout, but why in the heartland of trout fishing? Keep the lakes for the kids to catch some dinks, the rivers are managed very well for the monsters they hold. On the prairies, good, in the mountains, bad.

The less they have to stock these lakes, the more eyes they have from anglers watching poachers, the more non-government agencies get involved the less the gov has to put money too. And, we see a lower budget. Pretty clear to me. its been getting lower in the last 15 years too. The less the gov has to do, the less they have to pay. Damn clear to me.

sun also wrote....

The Bow River for instance is a fishery that does not get stocked. Does fine. The Crowsnest is not stocked. The Oldman is not stocked. All these fisheries are going well without stocking. A put and take lake with no natural spawning...requires stocking.

They were all stocked at one time. With invasive species at the top of the list of invasives. They wanted a quality fishery back then too i guess.


You are using river ecosystems as an example to compare to lakes with no waterflow or a closed system. Your a BIO, you should know better. You cant compare the 2, at all, no way. That position doesnt stand, at all, no way. You just mentioned rivers, any lakes you care to share with the same successes as your river examples?


STEELHEAD


Simple answer...surprised you missed it...the Bow, Crow and Oldman are a long ways away...have great fishing but only because of stricter regulations that limit harvest. I am glad you helped make my point. Better regulations here will dramatically improve this lake in a region where there are very few lakes that can qualify for a quality fishery whereas still leaving tons of other lakes for put and take, quick harvest.

In this area alone...if someone wanted lots of small easy to catch great tasting fish in an awesome scenic location...you can go no further that Elbow Lake. Those brookies are awesome tasting...and while small are extremely plentiful since they reproduce like crazy. Therefore...this is also an example of a fishery that while small...is self sustaining and not in need of stocking :-)

You say the issue is clear on less money for enforcement because of "new regulations" but seriously...please just provide some justification insofar as the proof your theory is correct. Otherwise...again...just a nice theory to talk about...but fishing in Alberta has not suffered any noticeable loss after Bullshead became such a famous fishery.

Now your argument about invasive stocking is off topic and quite frankly proves nothing as both Bow and LKL and UKL have been stocked with Rainbows...but by your argument against invasives...at least the new stocking program for UKL and LKL looks to more native cutthroats and protecting native bull trout. I am happy you agree to this positive.


As for stocking of lakes with cutthroats and why we don't have many quality lakes...thanks for the segway...we don't have tons of lakes down south and very few lakes with large populations of cutts that can grow big with all the beneficial attributes meeting the quality fishery requirements. Most lakes down south are designated for the put and take fishery. The best thing about UKL and LKL is these lakes hold the potential for a great fishery that benefits everyone.

You make an obvious point however that lakes and rivers are different in management style, fishing technique and locations. Many people prefer fishing lakes over rivers. You need specialized boats or plans to put in and take out. Lake fishing in many ways is simpler for equipment. People that like fishing lakes should have the same opportunity to catch quality fish that regulations have endowed us with on some rivers. We can't continue to ignore lakes.

Thanks for the chat and I look forward to you providing some quality information about this proposed quality fishery.

[Sundancefisher]

This maybe true but for the lakes that do have these regs.Your chances of catching fish are excellent even for people that are not very experienced.

IMHO this is what its all about,nothing worse then spending a bunch of money on gas food and tackle only to be skunked.Then trying to explain to your 10 year old nephew why we didn't catch anything.

Now maybe you'll understand.

Kootenay Lake is pretty big...a different fishery all together...what regulations do they have out of curiosity? I can see why guys that want quality trout are forced to leave the province. While BC waters are more fertile...longer growing season etc. it is a shame our fishermen need to leave.

[chubbdarter]

So your saying if a lake has a bigger average size then more people catch fish?

good luck fishing to you also.

sorry poor explaination.....i meant the larger the fish the ratio is even greater for the good fisherman

should of said.....5 percent of the fisherman catch 95 percent of the fish

thanks for the corection

[Sundancefisher]

If your want anyone to take anything that you write seriously then provide supporting information to back it up. Just because you say something is a fact doesn't make it so. Case in point, earlier this week I questioned you about where the facts were to support your statement that 94% of stocked fish were immediately caught. You admitted that you could not provide the supporting info yet you still post it as a fact (see your statement in bold #1 above).

Bold #2 - Show me the supporting information for this fact and how what happens at a small lake compares to Kan Lakes. They are usually stocked late in the Fall and are much bigger lakes. I highly doubt that they would be fished out within two weeks of being stocked so IMO it does not apply.

Bold #3 - You are saying that if someone voices an opinion it is a stated fact?:confused: Ah....ya.....okay. :scared: So if someone tells me that they think a quality fishery means catching and keeping several "eater" sized fish it is a stated fact and I should post it as a stated fact on this thread? I don't think so.

Bold #4 - If they put the same number of fish in every year how are the catch rates going to increase? Where is the logic.....Because the fish are bigger more of them will be caught?

Bold #5 - I could accept this as fact if a study was done to determine what the ramifications were of having more larger fish in the lake.

As for me campaigning against this proposal, I was quite happy to stay in the shadows and even helped you to maintain your credibility by quietly and diplomatically correcting you when I noticed you stating something as fact that any reasonable person would know was not possible to determine.

I came onto this thread with an open mind and I would have gladly signed the petition to support this proposal if I thought that it was a good idea. However, I have not read anything on the thread other than it would make it easier for grown ups to catch bigger fish as a reason to sign it. Had it been full of facts and information to support your position I may have seen it differently.

Although I admire and respect your determination in lobbying for this proposal, without studying the social, economic and environmental impacts of it first, how can anyone support it? Has anyone even contacted SRD to determine what the impact would be of having more larger fish in the lakes? Or, why the current regulation is in place to allow people to catch "eater" sized fish? How would this newly proposed regulation effect tourism and the local economy? There is a ton of more information that you need in order to be taken seriously. I'm sorry, but IMHO right now it just sounds like a few good 'ol boys got together on a Friday night over a few wobbly pops and came up with a plan to help them catch bigger fish.

I guess a large part of the disconnect comes from the fact that you must not of fished Bullshead after the regulation change. Is that a true statement? Seeing is often believing and catching is in the eye of the beholder. Without the successes of the past...I too would wonder about the turnout although my intuition and common sense thinking would lead to believe in a net benefit to the average angler. I would suggest you try that fishery and talk to as many people as I have to see what the impression of the before and after benefits are.

It is all fine and good to study to death something...but I am not sure you will ever get the exact answers you are looking for specific to each and every Quality Lake fishery proposal. Often history has the best lessons to learn and we have learned a lot to deem this to be a great idea.

I would suggest the specific questions regarding data to be forwarded to a F&W Bio and she what she/he has to say about the topic. In the meanwhile...I will make a few queries to see if I can get more "facts" insofar as studies for you.

[HunterDave]

Hunterdave, I was just curious as to your interest in these lakes as you are so oppossed to the proposed changes. There are another 15 or so lakes and ponds within 30 mins of K lakes that also get stocked to pull fish from, so I guess I am just not sure why making regs on these 2 are a problem. If they stop having to put 34,000 fish into K lakes all the time, they can start putting more of those fish into other areas to be pulled out for those that need to keep what they catch.

I also pay my fee's for fishing, and I would much rather my money go into enforcement and more CO's than growing fish for ppl to stock freezers with. The govt doesn't raise deer and elk for the hunters, so why are we doing it for fish? If hunting was run the way that fishing is I am sure that you would get real upset and would want changes also.

I'm not so opposed to the proposed changes as, more like, I don't understand the logic other than making it easier for adults to catch bigger fish. Nothing else has been presented. I reserve the right to change my mind though if the proposal is studied and presented in such a way that it convinces me that it is a good idea.

Growing bigger fish is not going to stop people from stocking their freezers. In fact, IMHO it would contribute to freezers getting stocked as much or more with bigger fish. Perhaps that is a valid point for this discussion. Maybe people figure that they can stock their freezer with bigger fish. If the possession limit is one fish, is everyone going to eat that one big fish before going back out to catch another one? Hmmmm.....food for thought.

Good comparison! The government doesn't tell me that I can only shoot a certain sized whitetail buck either. If they did, you bet that I'd be upset!!!!

Big game is a sustainable resource if it is managed correctly. Fishing can be as well in bodies of water where fish can spawn successfully. I think that a good start in those bodies of water would be to LEAVE the bigger spawners in those bodies of water and only take out the eating sized fish.

[HunterDave]

I would suggest the specific questions regarding data to be forwarded to a F&W Bio and she what she/he has to say about the topic. In the meanwhile...I will make a few queries to see if I can get more "facts" insofar as studies for you.

Do you mean that I should contact F&W Bio? This is not my proposal. It's up to whoever wants the change to the regs to provide that info to the people that they are lobbying to sign the petition.

Don't make any queries for me, do it for you.

Just a side note: Putting the petition link in your signature profile and it will show up at the bottom of all your posts.:)

[steelhead]

5 percent of anglers catch 5 percent of the fish. The others die from shock from moving from a climate controlled tank and into a waterbody, winter,summerkill, predators who fish all day when no anglers are around and water quality such as alkalinity.

Sun said,


Simple answer...surprised you missed it...the Bow, Crow and Oldman are a long ways away...have great fishing but only because of stricter regulations that limit harvest.


I guess it s not the forage base and many feeder spawing streams that feed it. With all the crud Calgary feeds that river with, the bugs abound and fish feed easily and spawn in one of 2 major systems. its not better regulations that made it that way, it was Poop that did it. Along with the oldman and the crow. Talked about that lots on the FF calgary board. So no, I didnt help you and your point. You discredited yourself.


People dont want to go to Elbow lake and catch stunted Brookies, they want to drive right up to shore along k lakes and get a better view and slightly larger fish with a nice picnic area and boatlaunch. Maybee to make k lakes a quality fishery you can advertize your SINGLE, closed system example of where kids can fish, and they will all leave k lakes alone. Is that the only example of a healthy closed system you have? How about one without brookies? I thought invasives were off topic?


In another thread, you used saving tax dollars as an incentive to sign your petition. So yes, it will take money from the fisheries as a whole. Less takes to spend on it, the less the government has to pay. Thanks for that, its you helping my arguements now. Nice job.


You also said...


We can't continue to ignore lakes.


No, we cant, but some dont need as much care as others. K lakes doesnt need squat. How about the lakes in the rest of the province, now theres where we need help. Fixing them will keep people away from K lakes.

you added...

Thanks for the chat and I look forward to you providing some quality information about this proposed quality fishery.


I havent seen any quality information from you yet. Not a stick! A few others here see that also. Except for bullshead examples, and with that example, makes the comparison between 2 different lakes in 2 different regions and 2 different size of waterbodies. The fish stocked now just feed the bulls. Lots of big bulls in that lake!


These quality fisheries you want should be made where few opp's exist. thats not it the mountains, lots of quality already. These quality fisheries should be in Potholes on the prairies. Where no opp's exist. Lots of places to do that to and theres no quality fisheries surrounding them now.


HunterDave wrote....

Although I admire and respect your determination in lobbying for this proposal, without studying the social, economic and environmental impacts of it first, how can anyone support it? Has anyone even contacted SRD to determine what the impact would be of having more larger fish in the lakes? Or, why the current regulation is in place to allow people to catch "eater" sized fish? How would this newly proposed regulation effect tourism and the local economy? There is a ton of more information that you need in order to be taken seriously. I'm sorry, but IMHO right now it just sounds like a few good 'ol boys got together on a Friday night over a few wobbly pops and came up with a plan to help them catch bigger fish.


Man, I couldnt agree more. Big boys want bigger fish to brag about.



I agree with quality fisheries But not in the mountains, Prairie potholes from north to south, yes.


I agree more with predator control before more regs.


You thanked me for helping your case Sun, but I must thank you for helping mine show how much your just saying anything now to rally the troops to sign this petition. Your flawed data and arguments only bolster that fact.


STEELHEAD

[HunterDave]

Steelhead - Man, Are your posts are hard to read. :lol: I can't tell who wrote what. Could you put statements that people wrote in quotes or italics?

[steelhead]

HunterDave....



Speaking as the official leader of the internet forum opposition party.........




...........NO.:):):bad_boys_20:




STEELHEAD

[goldscud]

Steelhead, you suggest there are lot of quality lakes already available in the southern foothills/mountains. Besides Sparrow's Egg (special regulations), can you give me the name of another one. It's funny, I've never heard of a BC guy coming over here to fish our lakes...
You also believe the only place for a quality lake should be on the prairie. Do you have any waterbody suggestions that would meet the Quality lakes initiative conditions? There seems to be few prairie waterbodies that could sustain trout throughout the year without some help.

[Sundancefisher]

5 percent of anglers catch 5 percent of the fish. The others die from shock from moving from a climate controlled tank and into a waterbody, winter,summerkill, predators who fish all day when no anglers are around and water quality such as alkalinity.

Sun said,


Simple answer...surprised you missed it...the Bow, Crow and Oldman are a long ways away...have great fishing but only because of stricter regulations that limit harvest.


I guess it s not the forage base and many feeder spawing streams that feed it. With all the crud Calgary feeds that river with, the bugs abound and fish feed easily and spawn in one of 2 major systems. its not better regulations that made it that way, it was Poop that did it. Along with the oldman and the crow. Talked about that lots on the FF calgary board. So no, I didnt help you and your point. You discredited yourself.


People dont want to go to Elbow lake and catch stunted Brookies, they want to drive right up to shore along k lakes and get a better view and slightly larger fish with a nice picnic area and boatlaunch. Maybee to make k lakes a quality fishery you can advertize your SINGLE, closed system example of where kids can fish, and they will all leave k lakes alone. Is that the only example of a healthy closed system you have? How about one without brookies? I thought invasives were off topic?


In another thread, you used saving tax dollars as an incentive to sign your petition. So yes, it will take money from the fisheries as a whole. Less takes to spend on it, the less the government has to pay. Thanks for that, its you helping my arguements now. Nice job.


You also said...


We can't continue to ignore lakes.


No, we cant, but some dont need as much care as others. K lakes doesnt need squat. How about the lakes in the rest of the province, now theres where we need help. Fixing them will keep people away from K lakes.

you added...

Thanks for the chat and I look forward to you providing some quality information about this proposed quality fishery.


I havent seen any quality information from you yet. Not a stick! A few others here see that also. Except for bullshead examples, and with that example, makes the comparison between 2 different lakes in 2 different regions and 2 different size of waterbodies. The fish stocked now just feed the bulls. Lots of big bulls in that lake!


These quality fisheries you want should be made where few opp's exist. thats not it the mountains, lots of quality already. These quality fisheries should be in Potholes on the prairies. Where no opp's exist. Lots of places to do that to and theres no quality fisheries surrounding them now.


HunterDave wrote....

Although I admire and respect your determination in lobbying for this proposal, without studying the social, economic and environmental impacts of it first, how can anyone support it? Has anyone even contacted SRD to determine what the impact would be of having more larger fish in the lakes? Or, why the current regulation is in place to allow people to catch "eater" sized fish? How would this newly proposed regulation effect tourism and the local economy? There is a ton of more information that you need in order to be taken seriously. I'm sorry, but IMHO right now it just sounds like a few good 'ol boys got together on a Friday night over a few wobbly pops and came up with a plan to help them catch bigger fish.


Man, I couldnt agree more. Big boys want bigger fish to brag about.



I agree with quality fisheries But not in the mountains, Prairie potholes from north to south, yes.


I agree more with predator control before more regs.


You thanked me for helping your case Sun, but I must thank you for helping mine show how much your just saying anything now to rally the troops to sign this petition. Your flawed data and arguments only bolster that fact.


STEELHEAD

So your logic and facts tell you 95% of the fish stocked die before being caught? Strange...no studies have ever showed that fact before. It is not true.

Bow River fish grow big because of the food supply...again...not part of the topic. The reason why the population is high is because of the regulations limiting harvest. It proves that if you can grow them big then you can catch them big. Same as LKL and UKL.

You are right people would prefer to catch small fish that are easier to access by car then having to walk for a while to get to. We all know that. But then again...there are all the other lakes a poster listed that have excellent access to put and take trout. If you wanted a larger lake...Chain Lakes has tons.

You say that it is not the regulations that define the population of trout in the Bow River. Then you would state if their was no limit there would be the same number of trout to catch as their is now. I guess that is a fundamental fisheries management fact that we don't agree on. I believe the population of trout is defined by the controlled harvest. Uncontrolled harvest destroys the fishery. I wish you were correct...then every uncontrolled fishery in the World would be corrected over night.

Better spending tax payers dollars can mean stocking the same number of fish but allowing them to let nature grow them to a larger size before harvest. If there is a savings on trout that don't need to be stocked...why not put those extra fish into the smaller put and take lakes so that there are more freshly stocked 12 inchers for people? Who says not stocking them. The benefit to tax payers is a better quality fishery...hopefully for less money. What is wrong with that? I am all for less taxes. Still I want more money in the system...not less... But by making this a better fishery is not a vote for less money. You digress.

You like UKL and LKL as a small trout put and take fishery. Your right to that position is understandable. I hope you understand others rights to expect better than that. I hope in time... the regulations come into effect and you will appreciate it all the more.

You keep talking about predator control like you are against people harvesting. It could also mean you are against poachers. I am in favor of harvest and against poaching. However...I don't feel poachers are the root cause of over harvest. If you have a large population like Calgary near by...it does not take long to harvest the fish. On Allen Bill pond...one day I counted 100 people fishing a few days after stocking. Everyone was fishing...many were catching...almost all were harvesting. At 5 trout per person...if I recall the regs...it did not take too many weeks to harvest them all out. No poaching was necessary and 3 weeks later the lake was a ghost town.

You still support the regulations with your logic...you are adept at trying to twist the points but in the end hopefully people read enough to know for themselves what makes common sense and intuitively fits the puzzle.

If you stock 12 inch trout...people harvest them sooner than putting a 20 inch limit and allowing them to grow. Bullshead proved this works...that can not be contradicted as it is a proven fact.

It is a sad fact in Alberta we fight to preserve our 12 inch fisheries where in BC they fight to increase trout sizes. We have members lambasting this initiative yet leave the Province to fish Kootenay Lake for big rainbows. That leaves little option for larger quality fish near Calgary. Right now 3.5 - 4 hour drive is common for many desperately seeking larger fish but they travel to Bullshead. In time hopefully UKL and LKL will provide a similar fishery.

Sun

[HunterDave]

HunterDave....



Speaking as the official leader of the internet forum opposition party.........




...........NO.:):):bad_boys_20:




STEELHEAD
:sHa_sarcasticlol:

[steelhead]

Anyhow, Sun, I made my points, yer twisting them into things i never said. Re read them if you have to. They are what I think and said, not what you think I said. Your not me. I do think you should have done a bit more research on the topic before heading it up. There will be people that will oppose it, and for good reasons.



On to Goldscud who wrote....... hunterdave, notice the quotes!


"Steelhead, you suggest there are lot of quality lakes already available in the southern foothills/mountains. Besides Sparrow's Egg (special regulations), can you give me the name of another one. It's funny, I've never heard of a BC guy coming over here to fish our lakes...
You also believe the only place for a quality lake should be on the prairie. Do you have any waterbody suggestions that would meet the Quality lakes initiative conditions? There seems to be few prairie waterbodies that could sustain trout throughout the year without some help."

Late edit, I misread your post. As for southern foothills and mountains, there are more rivers and small streams to fish with already existing quality regulations and amazing stream fishing. people from BC come here for the river fishing, not the lakes it seems. Most of our quality lakes are a 1-3 hour hike into the rocks, and there is where you find the true quality lakes. Thats where I go to get quality, and fish the streams along the way! Let the BCers get the stockie dinks. Most of thier lakes in BC are full of little gerrards also with big broodstock thrown in. They only have one or 2 lakes I would call quality, and none close to the southern AB border. Funny, I cant think of any! Just the Elk river. And its a river.


Pick a lake on any of the stocking lists in the PP zones. Any of those lakes can be made into a quality fishery. All of them. BUT, with what money is it gonna happen with? They can be dug out deeper, aerated, artificial reefs to raise forage, enlarged, canals made to divert runoff water to keep it full and a supply of water for dry areas. Heck, they spend millions on irrigation lakes, and they are all quality fisheries! Any pothole can be made into a QUALITY LAKE.

How about lobbying for a project that spends ALOT of money to create a quality project, not, no spending projects where the money for anything slowly dissapears? . And lobby the gov for more money to create these projects and pay for enforcement! Everyone blames the poachers and anglers for the lack of quality in this province, but never Government spending. And that is absolutely crackers!


I have spent alot of time in many provinces in the last few years. They have public service announcements on tv, clean fresh painted signs, publications for almost every aspect of angling, government funded workers to clean up and beautify, well managed fisheries as a whole, no 12 year wait to figure out regs, if a problem exists, they fix it. I cant believe the money other provinces spew out to creat quality fisheries. Its astronomical! And they are all poorer than us!!

Now, if you have ever been to many other provinces and seen what I wrote above, why would anyone from BC want to come to Alberta to fish as there is NONE of the above, no trees and wind and dust, lots of wind and dust!

No wonder you havent heard of anybody coming from BC to Alberta to fish our lakes. Why would they when they have all I wrote about above.

I hope that answers your queries, goldscud.



No matter what, Quality can only be provided to all by spending money. Make the Government spend money, lobby for that, Make them spend your tax dollars to create and manage better for us.


STEELHEAD

[HunterDave]

I guess a large part of the disconnect comes from the fact that you must not of fished Bullshead after the regulation change. Is that a true statement? Seeing is often believing and catching is in the eye of the beholder. Without the successes of the past...I too would wonder about the turnout although my intuition and common sense thinking would lead to believe in a net benefit to the average angler. I would suggest you try that fishery and talk to as many people as I have to see what the impression of the before and after benefits are.

It is all fine and good to study to death something...but I am not sure you will ever get the exact answers you are looking for specific to each and every Quality Lake fishery proposal. Often history has the best lessons to learn and we have learned a lot to deem this to be a great idea.

Sorry Sundancefisher, I didn't mean to ignore your question. No, I have never fished Bullshead Reservoir however I know a little about it. I think that to say a certain stocking program or regulation will work in one body of water because it worked in a different body of water is simplifying things somewhat. I know that it isn't true. Almost every body of water is different, whether it be the geographical location, water quality, food supply, water level fluctuations and on and on.

Are you suggesting that Bullshead and the Kan Lakes are near identical in every way so what holds true for one should be adopted for the other?

There is no requirement to study something to death but some study is required. You may not get the answer that you are looking for (ie. Kan Lakes might not be able to support the amount of large fish projected) but knowing that before tabling this proposal would probably be a good thing to know.

Case in point - About 20 years ago I was involved with introducing Rainbow trout into a lake in Petawawa, Ontario. I had a choice of 5 different lakes to chose from and I worked with MNR to determine which lake would be the best choice. Even though all 5 bodies of water looked the same and were in the same geographical location it was determined that 2 lakes were not suitable.

I realize that this petition is not about introducing a new species into the lakes but the point that I'm trying to make is that bodies of water are different.

[chubbdarter]

i have many friends that come here to fish from B.C......yes they have pike and walleye but they come here because its just better. Gawd forbid they suggest regulations changes to suit their personal desires and stock more B.C. lakes with gators and set regs for their sucess.
its not sad we have to travel to seek trophy rainbows....its part of the experience. like a hunter going to africa to hunt exotics....please dont suggest we stock elephants in pp1 so they dont have to travel to africa
B.C has their problems too.

i also believe there is lurkers on here. lol . because they are very successful in catching the fish you desire already. im also very leary of many fish nettings from the Gov......its my opinion they are very book smart but as far as water smart not so much. I'd be very interested in the netting details

I know your a powerful guy on this forum and many are afraid to say anything. which is fine you probably have done many things to deserve this respect..congats.

i openly invite you to make the trip with me to the koot and get this 20inch rainbow thing out of your system.

[Sundancefisher]

Sorry Sundancefisher, I didn't mean to ignore your question. No, I have never fished Bullshead Reservoir however I know a little about it. I think that to say a certain stocking program or regulation will work in one body of water because it worked in a different body of water is simplifying things somewhat. I know that it isn't true. Almost every body of water is different, whether it be the geographical location, water quality, food supply, water level fluctuations and on and on.

Are you suggesting that Bullshead and the Kan Lakes are near identical in every way so what holds true for one should be adopted for the other?

There is no requirement to study something to death but some study is required. You may not get the answer that you are looking for (ie. Kan Lakes might not be able to support the amount of large fish projected) but knowing that before tabling this proposal would probably be a good thing to know.

Case in point - About 20 years ago I was involved with introducing Rainbow trout into a lake in Petawawa, Ontario. I had a choice of 5 different lakes to chose from and I worked with MNR to determine which lake would be the best choice. Even though all 5 bodies of water looked the same and were in the same geographical location it was determined that 2 lakes were not suitable.

I realize that this petition is not about introducing a new species into the lakes but the point that I'm trying to make is that bodies of water are different.

I appreciate you responding. I understand that with the success of Bullshead that the government and fishing interest groups have put their heads together and did some research to see what the requirements are for a quality fishery like Bullshead in other areas of the Province. They placed an emphasis on finding lakes that meet a minimum requirement. There are very, very few of them. As such my understanding is that these lakes meet that requirement. As such...given that all I understand about the subject and my experience...I can see the benefits. Some may disagree but I do have to vote based upon the information that is out there. To find out exactly what the requirements are...maybe the lead poster can comment.

Still...I welcome you to go to Bullshead and talk to people...whether they are flyfishing from shore...casting bobbers with flies or floating the lake...all say the same thing. Fishing is better than it ever was in the past. A few told me they disagreed with the new regs at first but came around and changed their opinion after the implementation.

Now...I can not say if F&W will agree with this initiative. They may review it and say no for some reason I am not aware of. Still...we are asking them to look at it. If in fact it meets all requirements...why not give it a try. The benefits IMHO will out weigh the short term concerns.

Your concerns about different water bodies variability will be addressed by the F&W biologists final report on the project...not by this petition.

[Sundancefisher]

i have many friends that come here to fish from B.C......yes they have pike and walleye but they come here because its just better. Gawd forbid they suggest regulations changes to suit their personal desires and stock more B.C. lakes with gators and set regs for their sucess.

Curious...are you suggesting you favor the introduction of pike to non native waters holding trout in BC?

[chubbdarter]

Curious...are you suggesting you favor the introduction of pike to non native waters holding trout in BC?

ya thats what gawd forbid means......wow

i wish i could change my vote to....i just dont care

[Sundancefisher]

ya thats what gawd forbid means......wow

i wish i could change my vote to....i just dont care

Thanks.

Just wanted to know if I was reading it correctly. It answers a big question for me on the credibility of a poster when someone advocates releasing a new and highly efficient fish predator into a water system.

Sun

[steelhead]

Someone bumped a topic up from a day on K lakes. Man those are big bulls. Huge actually.


And it got me thinking.


So if we were to enhance the rainbow trout fishing on this lake with stricter regs for thier size and survival as they seem to be self reproducing now, would they push out the bulls and cutts like they did on the Bow river?


If that were to happen, or have a chance to happen, I am against it.


Logan wont have any big bull pictures to share of what already looks like a quality fishery!


Anglers can catch huge fish there. Maybee not on a flyrod, but they certainly can catch big fish here. Can you use a flyrod to fish the deep deep water where the biggest fish hold in a deep lake situation? I never seen flyfishing done on Kootenay lake in August when the big bows are in 200 feet of water.


I bet those test nets didnt stretch into the deepest water.


STEELHEAD

[chubbdarter]

Thanks.

Just wanted to know if I was reading it correctly. It answers a big question for me on the credibility of a poster when someone advocates releasing a new and highly efficient fish predator into a water system.

Sun

your twisting of words suggest a drowning lawyer .
you cant be so ignorant to believe thats what i meant.....you twist everyones words to suit your parade.

[HunterDave]

Still...I welcome you to go to Bullshead and talk to people...whether they are flyfishing from shore...casting bobbers with flies or floating the lake...all say the same thing. Fishing is better than it ever was in the past. A few told me they disagreed with the new regs at first but came around and changed their opinion after the implementation.

No thanks, It's too far for me to drive to only catch and keep one 20" trout. I'd sooner go to Carson Lake and catch and keep five nice sized Rainbow trout. And, some of them might even be 20" or over. :sHa_shakeshout:

I'll take your word for it about Bullshead though. :)

[fishpro]

Someone bumped a topic up from a day on K lakes. Man those are big bulls. Huge actually.


And it got me thinking.


So if we were to enhance the rainbow trout fishing on this lake with stricter regs for thier size and survival as they seem to be self reproducing now, would they push out the bulls and cutts like they did on the Bow river?


If that were to happen, or have a chance to happen, I am against it.


Logan wont have any big bull pictures to share of what already looks like a quality fishery!


Anglers can catch huge fish there. Maybee not on a flyrod, but they certainly can catch big fish here. Can you use a flyrod to fish the deep deep water where the biggest fish hold in a deep lake situation? I never seen flyfishing done on Kootenay lake in August when the big bows are in 200 feet of water.


I bet those test nets didnt stretch into the deepest water.


STEELHEAD

To my understanding, the main goal actually isn't to enhance the rainbow trout fishing there, but rather the cutthroats. Although I'm not aware of as many lakes with both bulls and cutthroats, but I know they coexist quite well in many river systems. I do not believe that cutthroats would drive out the bull trout.

There is an extremely small risk of the rainbow trout population increasing on the lower lake as there is some natural reproduction, but I do not believe people heavily target the rainbows now as it is. So it's most likely the the rainbows have a low population simply due to limited spawning habitat of perhaps some other limiting factor. With something like this limiting the numbers, I don't think we would have to worry about rainbows pushing out the cutts and bulls.

[Sundancefisher]

i have many friends that come here to fish from B.C......yes they have pike and walleye but they come here because its just better. Gawd forbid they suggest regulations changes to suit their personal desires and stock more B.C. lakes with gators and set regs for their sucess.

Curious...are you suggesting you favor the introduction of pike to non native waters holding trout in BC?

ya thats what gawd forbid means......wow


Thanks.
Just wanted to know if I was reading it correctly. It answers a big question for me on the credibility of a poster when someone advocates releasing a new and highly efficient fish predator into a water system.

your twisting of words suggest a drowning lawyer .
you cant be so ignorant to believe thats what i meant.....you twist everyones words to suit your parade.

You sure have confused me. I thought I gave you ample chance to explain yourself. Not sure how else to understand you when you seem to be so clear in your ideas.

Do you believe in stocking non native fish predators in trout waters in BC? Yes or No.

You have some ideas that preach your ideas and I need to understand them to see if you have a valid point. Now if you are so off from standard thinking then you could still have an outside the box idea that is valid...but people need to know how much knowledge you have on fisheries management issues since you have been strongly opposed to the logic expressed so far.

Anyways...I will have to take you up on catching big fish in BC... I have a number of friends that trek to the Kootenay every year to hammer some monsters. Big fish. Do you troll deep like they do or can you catch them without all the extra hardware?

[steelhead]

Thank you Fishpro, i like your response and your views.


I just think, if we have the hybridization as we do on the rivers of cutts and bows, cuttbows, and with regs preventing the take of smaller trout, both bows and cutts, allowing those fish to be of spawning size for that to happen, do you think that may happen in the future in this situation? We do know how invasive and destructive bows can be.


Once a fish has started spawning in a less than natural situation, the offspring return to the place of thier birth to procreate again. Now that the Bows have found a sweet spot to spawn after a couple of decades, could there be a chance of a higher recruitment in the future for this specie? Perhaps hybridization also?

So many tangents to consider for these lakes. Especially since they already have self-sustaining and multiple species.

Now, if they were void of fish or only had one specie to consider (cutts), I would be for the new regs. I would help the cause actually. But, as we have seen with the ( I know its a different specie but they are not naturally a lake spawner) Walleye spawning in unnatural settings and thier proliferation to the point of noticable decline of other species, do you think that situation may happen in K lake? We changed the regs to allow walleyes to reach spawning age. If we do that for a lake that holds rainbows, is there a possible chance they may take over?


Thanks for your input. I dont agree with some of it, but some I do. I just hate to see an experiment go bad like it has in many many situations in this province and, well, even the states that hug the east side of the divide like us.


STEELHEAD

[goldscud]

Steelhead, the bull trout in Lower Kan can easily be caught with fly rods. In fact I've witnessed 30 fish days with flies.
Pretty sure the rainbows didn't drive out the bull trout from the Bow river. I've fished the Bow since the 60's, when did the rainbows push them out? I don't ever remember catching any in any abundance below Calgary. A few dams, migrating issues, water temps and angling/poaching all might have affected things for the Bull trout

Back to quality lakes...I wish the rest of us knew of quality trout lakes outside of the National Parks here in southern Alberta. I'm just trying to gather facts so I can see why a proposal for a quality lake should be rejected. Pretty much everyone I know goes to BC to catch big trout. I'm surprised all the big triploids in BC don't qualify as quality trout for you.
I agree we have great trout streams in southern Alberta. Many of us would just like to see a few more quality lakes (that us dummies can find).

Prairie lakes...you make it sound so easy to make a trophy trout fishery. I to would love it if our government would invest more money into fisheries. However, it doesn't seem to be much of a priority for them. To dredge, aerate and supply stable (pike free) water conditions would take a giant investment.

[chubbdarter]

You sure have confused me. I thought I gave you ample chance to explain yourself. Not sure how else to understand you when you seem to be so clear in your ideas.

Do you believe in stocking non native fish predators in trout waters in BC? Yes or No.

hahahaahah you indeed are special!!!!

You have some ideas that preach your ideas and I need to understand them to see if you have a valid point. Now if you are so off from standard thinking then you could still have an outside the box idea that is valid...but people need to know how much knowledge you have on fisheries management issues since you have been strongly opposed to the logic expressed so far.

and your expertise....can we grade you on your community pond?.....i can play dirty too!!!!!!

Anyways...I will have to take you up on catching big fish in BC... I have a number of friends that trek to the Kootenay every year to hammer some monsters. Big fish. Do you troll deep like they do or can you catch them without all the extra hardware?

we pull hair and hockey sticks on top in the spring.....when the flying ants come out we flycast in creek mouths....in the fall we pull hair again.....winter its billies and dawgs

[Sundancefisher]

Thank you Fishpro, i like your response and your views.


I just think, if we have the hybridization as we do on the rivers of cutts and bows, cuttbows, and with regs preventing the take of smaller trout, both bows and cutts, allowing those fish to be of spawning size for that to happen, do you think that may happen in the future in this situation? We do know how invasive and destructive bows can be.


Once a fish has started spawning in a less than natural situation, the offspring return to the place of thier birth to procreate again. Now that the Bows have found a sweet spot to spawn after a couple of decades, could there be a chance of a higher recruitment in the future for this specie? Perhaps hybridization also?

So many tangents to consider for these lakes. Especially since they already have self-sustaining and multiple species.

Now, if they were void of fish or only had one specie to consider (cutts), I would be for the new regs. I would help the cause actually. But, as we have seen with the ( I know its a different specie but they are not naturally a lake spawner) Walleye spawning in unnatural settings and thier proliferation to the point of noticable decline of other species, do you think that situation may happen in K lake? We changed the regs to allow walleyes to reach spawning age. If we do that for a lake that holds rainbows, is there a possible chance they may take over?


Thanks for your input. I dont agree with some of it, but some I do. I just hate to see an experiment go bad like it has in many many situations in this province and, well, even the states that hug the east side of the divide like us.


STEELHEAD
I agree with Fishpro

Rainbows have shown minor spawning success. Water is probably too cold for them and the season too short as well as lack of quality spawning habitat. I have seen rainbows trying to spawn in August. Nothing that will happen will improve their numbers...but rather just keep them hanging in. If it was a problem...F&W could easily crash what little spawning success there is. As this area does not have pure cutthroat genetics...any rainbow/cutt hybrids will not be a negative as the damage happened long ago.

Cutts and bulls evolved together and coexisted naturally in this basin. They have a different niche in the ecosystem. Overall I don't see any species interaction issues that should be called a negative to this proposal.

[steelhead]

Goldscud


At one time, all there was were cutts and bulls in the Bow. Now, all there is are Bows and Browns and billions of them. Thats quite an invasion. I do understand that there are other contributing factors to thier decline. Dams, pollution, warming of waters due to cities and towns dumping effluent. If you go upstream on the highwood system such as 3point, sheep, and highwood and thier tribs, We see a few more of the first species but less compared to invasives. And then throw in the Brookies. When fishing a trib of the highwood up 40, i get 3 brookies to one bull and no cutts. In some places, all cutts and bulls with a splash of cuttbow or Bow. If the invasives werent there, we would only catch cutts and bulls. I think and believe the invasives to and have pushed out the Cutts and Bulls and continue to do so. One reason why they want all brookies to die on the 3point system. I would be concerned of this happening in K lakes if they were left unchecked.


I have gone to BC many many times to fish potholes for the gerrards. Many times. I find that thier potholes are quite simular in size as alberta pothole trout, and they stock them every year too and with a small keeper size limit like AB. Look at the Bow caught in Macvinnie res that won the award for big trout in the regs. Thats a honker and it was caught in a pothole. Our potholes can produce the odd honker just like BC. It was also not a broodstock. When people go to BC to get big fish, they hit the rivers and Koot lake. The rivers have massive fish due to the regs, much like alberta streams. Koot lake has big bulls and gerrards. K lake has big bulls and Cutts and are caught with as much frequency and maybee more on K lakes compared to koot. I fish both alot.


One reason why i make it sound easy to make a quality pothole lake on the prairies is that I see private landowners digging thier own HUGE lakes, funding and stocking them and seeing a beautiful lake with lots of trout. many of our potholes now were built by companies like logging and oil companies. Just a drop in the bucket for price to build a quality fishery from scratch. If the gov asked for money from oil or agriculture to help build these or enhance and dredge what we have, it would get cheaper Private landowners are doing it and on the cheap. Pick any claypan and sick a d-8 cat to it and voila, lake. And it can be deeper than just looking for a suitable slough.

But, since the gov is cheaping out with our tax dollars, we aint getting any of that for our dollars. We get what we have got now and no more, but always less.


We dont need more special regs on any lake no where in this province. We need dollars and action. As in other provinces, it shows it works. It can work here.


Lobby for dollars and action. excellent. Lobby for stricter regs, going backwards like we have seen for years now.

I want to go forward, dont you?


STEELHEAD

[fishpro]

Thank you Fishpro, i like your response and your views.


I just think, if we have the hybridization as we do on the rivers of cutts and bows, cuttbows, and with regs preventing the take of smaller trout, both bows and cutts, allowing those fish to be of spawning size for that to happen, do you think that may happen in the future in this situation? We do know how invasive and destructive bows can be.


Once a fish has started spawning in a less than natural situation, the offspring return to the place of thier birth to procreate again. Now that the Bows have found a sweet spot to spawn after a couple of decades, could there be a chance of a higher recruitment in the future for this specie? Perhaps hybridization also?

So many tangents to consider for these lakes. Especially since they already have self-sustaining and multiple species.

Now, if they were void of fish or only had one specie to consider (cutts), I would be for the new regs. I would help the cause actually. But, as we have seen with the ( I know its a different specie but they are not naturally a lake spawner) Walleye spawning in unnatural settings and thier proliferation to the point of noticable decline of other species, do you think that situation may happen in K lake? We changed the regs to allow walleyes to reach spawning age. If we do that for a lake that holds rainbows, is there a possible chance they may take over?


Thanks for your input. I dont agree with some of it, but some I do. I just hate to see an experiment go bad like it has in many many situations in this province and, well, even the states that hug the east side of the divide like us.


STEELHEAD

Your point about the hybridization could happen, but at the same time I don't think it is a huge concern. There are a few reasons I feel this.

Like I said, I believe that there are very few people who target the rainbows in the lower lake. Hence the numbers are primarly limited by the spawning habitat in this lake, and not by fishermen. As of right now, both rainbow and cutt populations in the lake are maintained only through spawning, I don't think there is the same amount of stocking as in the upper lake. What this means is that fishermen take very few rainbows from the lower lake and hence offering the proposed protection will not significantly affect the number of rainbows. On the other hand, we will be able to increase the number of cutthroats through stocking.

The upper lake is a different situation though. As far as I know there is no spawning by the rainbows here simply due to a lack of appropriate spawning habitat. There will eventually come a day when the rainbows from previous stockings have died off, it will become a cutthroat and bull trout lake. It is nearly to that point now.

As for hybridization, I don't think we need to worry the same way as on the rivers. I'm not saying it won't happen, but rather it probably won't cause problems as in river systems. The main reason for this is the limited spawning as mentioned before. Furthermore, if there are a few rainbows and cuttbows after 20 years, I don't think this is a huge concern for fishermen of biologists. The reason for this is that the cutthroats in the lakes will not be a native population, such as what we have in the rivers where rainbows have taken over and diluted the gene pool and left no pure strain native cutts. The stocking of cutthroats and bull trout is to return the lakes to a more natural state, but it will never be a true native population. I think that what we would eventually see is a lake with numerous bulls and cutts, and then every now and then you would hook a large rainbow that causes your reel to scream.

I do not believe that these regulations will enable rainbows to completely take over the lake(s), especially with large amounts of cutthroats being stocked on an annual basis.

[goldscud]

I dug around to find some interesting info on the gill netting in UKL:

"In 2006 and 2007, the nets were set on the bottom (various depths) in the same locations at the same time of year as in 1986. The only difference was that in 2007, nets were also set in the mid water and on the surface, since no cutthroat trout were caught in the bottom sets. However, to ensure consistency the comparison of the catch rate data in the poster was only for the catches from the bottom sets. All live trout that were still alive were released so as to not unnecessarily impact the fishery."

In 2006 and 2007, there were fewer days of gillnetting conducted than in 1986, because so many more sport fish were being caught in each net. Since the biologists didn't want to unnecessarily impact the fishery by killing too many sport fish, and because they had enough data to determine that the density of sport fish and the average size of sport fish had increased, they cut short the number of days of gillnetting in 2006 and 2007.

Government fiddling with fisheries in the Lower Kan:

Do you really think that the Alberta's "fiddling" with the LKL fishery (implementation of the 0-limit for bull trout and bait ban in 1992), which resulted in a 30-fold increase bull trout numbers in LKL, was the wrong approach? What would your approach have been.................keep the regulations as they were and allow anglers to wipe out the remaining 60 adult bull trout, just to protect the stocked rainbow fishery

[goldscud]

Quality lake regulations on an existing lake vs BUILDING a quality prairie trout lake
In Alberta, I think option number 1 is the only thing I'm going to see in my lifetime.

Rainbows and Bulls in LKL. They are using different streams to spawn in. I don't think the spring spawning will ever be significant enough to harm the Bull trout. Very cold water and limited habitat. When future gill netting surveys are done on LKL, I'm sure the bios will look at the growth rates and determine if Cutt stocking densities need to be altered.

I've fished lots of quality lakes in BC along the Columbia/Kootenay valleys and around Kamloops. It's nice to go to a lake where the catch rates for trout over even 18" are quite high. A few more in Alberta would keep me from leaving the province every summer.

[Sundancefisher]

Goldscud


At one time, all there was were cutts and bulls in the Bow. Now, all there is are Bows and Browns and billions of them. Thats quite an invasion. I do understand that there are other contributing factors to thier decline. Dams, pollution, warming of waters due to cities and towns dumping effluent. If you go upstream on the highwood system such as 3point, sheep, and highwood and thier tribs, We see a few more of the first species but less compared to invasives. And then throw in the Brookies. When fishing a trib of the highwood up 40, i get 3 brookies to one bull and no cutts. In some places, all cutts and bulls with a splash of cuttbow or Bow. If the invasives werent there, we would only catch cutts and bulls. I think and believe the invasives to and have pushed out the Cutts and Bulls and continue to do so. One reason why they want all brookies to die on the 3point system. I would be concerned of this happening in K lakes if they were left unchecked.
STEELHEAD

I agree. Brookies are the worst invasive when it comes to cutts and bull trout. The research done on Quirk Creek has shown the steady decline in natives due to brookies as well as disastrous hybridization problems between bulls and brookies. F&W with Trout Unlimited started the Quirk Creek project years ago to selectively encourage brookie harvest and through that practice determine the effects on the natives. The thing to remember about brookies is that they can compete very well is upper cold water reaches of small foothill and mountain streams and tributaries. Rainbows can also compete with natives cutts in more lower reaches and bulls to some extent (but they often fill a similar roll to cutts) and hybridization with rainbows and native westslopes cutts was a darn tragedy. In these colder waters browns do not do very well at all. Quite poorly in fact. Rainbows also are somewhat limited in spawning as they are not evolved for these areas but through genetics...get a foothold in the upper reaches. Nature evolved cutts and bulls to coexist and live extremely well in the UKL and LKL area. No one is advocating stocking brookies so that fear is not a concern.

I would have to guess only at this but I recall some studies that showed bull trout diminished quickly as you moved downstream in the Bow and Oldman Rivers due to temperature requirements of the species. I remember that being the case on the North Sask with very few bulls caught downstream of Rocky and a rare one in Edmonton.

The same applied to the upstream limits of browns in colder water with the colder the water the harder it is for them to compete. The Seebe Dam would of destroyed any downstream migration and possible upstream migration and that was probably the kiss of death for bulls downstream... After that...Ghost did it. When the Oldman Dam was built...they had planned to put a ladder in...then changed their mind. The plan was to expect the bulls to spawn in another creek...Pincher Creek...but that never materialized. Therefore all bulls downstream for a while were moved by hand upstream in the fall to promote spawning. That has stopped I assumed since when I worked on that project I have heard nothing since. With little to no natural spawning...all you get downstream of the dams are stray fish that swim over the spill way. As the natural population dies of old age...the species composition changes. Bull trout disappear and any species that can spawn do so. Browns and brookies have spawning requirements that compliment the remaining habitat below dams. In the old fisheries management days...any sport fish surviving and doing well was a victory...now we are also concerned with protecting natives over and above non native if we have a choice. So to show sportfishing was not effected downstream of dams...F&W stocked the crap out of it hoping to get rainbows and browns to be successful. Yes it obviously worked.

I would be curious to see how the upper Bow in Banff is doing. When I was a kid...all I ever caught were brookies. I hear there is a bull fishery but not much in the way of browns except in a few tribs I am aware of.

I think most people would love to step back in time and not stock brookies in 99% of the places the are today. You and I kind Sir are finally in agreement on something for sure.

Cheers

Sun

[smitty9]

Steelhead:

As you've criticized Sun's points, I'll exercise my right to do the same.

I don't subscribe to your fear-based approach to fisheries management. There's a lot of 'coulda' and 'maybe' in your hypothetical projections.

What I would like to see is the potential of the lakes reached. Part of this point is the separate issue of littoral restoration, lake stabilization, which isn't part of the picture right now (I had thought that the plant was going to be de-commissioned).

But the most basic point is that the lakes are far to big to waste on a put-and-take 5 fish / daily limit, bait allowed fishery. There are plenty of those around. LKL and UKL do indeed have quality fish, but the quality of fishing as measured by average size could be improved. Nothing you or the anti's have said have made any compelling arguments to change my mind.

I also reject your thesis about mountain versus prairie quality fisheries. Nothing wrong or dangerous or inappropriate about having a mountain quality fishery close to a major center like Calgary. Most anglers, I think, would welcome it.

I've taught plenty of kids to spin - with and without bait - but especially to flyfish - had a 3 yr old catch her first fish on a flyrod last summer -, so again, I'll toss out the whole "family/kids" argument for the hogwash it is. There are still plenty - PLENTY - of places in this province, north and south to take kids to catch rainbow trout with a bobber and worm/powerbait.

I think you've done a splendid job obfuscating the argument with a lot of points that seem either like red herrings or nitpickiness or simply based on conjecture.

Of course there are concerns, but as with anything in life, there are lots of ways to say no, the trick sometimes is to have vision and find ways to say yes to something. Not here to try and change your mind - if anything these debates sure bring out the entrenched on both sides, including me, just adding my half penny to the side that seems to be pro-active in terms of changing AB's fisheries for the better (and there some risks to it, sure, but not much imho).

Smitty

Oh, and as Sun said, I too am looking forward to your petition to get more money for enforcement, money for SRD in general. I'd probably sign it.

[steelhead]

Goldscud - test netting flaws. 20 some years and 3 test nettings. Same places, same time of year. Fish move. Populations have ups and downs due to environmental impacts, floods, drought, fires, logging, hydro use. The space between nettings, same place, same time of year allow flaws in the data. If the data showed a yearly test, in different seasons, and told of local environmental changes, I would agree with that data. Have you ever seen the work and money other provinces put into testing a lake or river? You would see the flaws in this data also As it stands, i cannot accept it.

I agree with the bait ban and bull closure. It did well. It made the lakes what they are today, quality for young and old. Cant get better than that. Why change it?

Fishpro - the bows are already spawning. Like the walleyes, they found a niche. Theres no turning back the walleye tide. My views see the rainbows there only getting a bigger population, just like the walleyes. Its already started.


Sun - The bows are spawning now. They found thier niche. I guess it isnt too cold for them and there is suitable habitat. Funny how nature works.



We can debate this all we want. But why isnt anyone petitioning for more money? Wanna see a sign up sheet fill up fast?

I dont agree with more regs anywhere. No matter what the situation. The more we encourage to make new regs, the less money we see come back to fishing.

If you fold to the Gov buy changing regs to fit existing budgets, make free changes and not ask for more money, it will create a trend where there will be NO money going to our fisheries. Much like what is happening now.

I agree we should lobby for more money and make our tax dollars work for us. It is the only thing that will make this all better.

Enhance the fishing everywhere and care for every waterbody and we wont have to worry about quality lakes regs, they will all be quality and more places of quality to spread out the pressure.


Change the regs to suit the 250-300 people who voted yes for these changes, well, thats absurd. It will hurt more than the waters you are trying to protect.

I am still against this proposal.


STEELHEAD

[GaryF]

So ppl come from BC to fish our amazing pike and walleye, and albertans head to BC to fish thier big trout in lakes? And working towards creating one or two of these lakes here in alberta, close to calgary, is a bad thing? I have followed this topic since the start and have yet to see anything posted that is a true factual negative to this initiative. Lots of IMHO out there about garbage, traffic, congestion, kids not being able to catch fish, etc. One poster listed another 50 plus lakes and potholes that can be stripped clean of fish for those that like to keep their catches, so I am still missing why changing 2 lakes to stricter regs to promote a quality fishery is such a problem. The SRD stocked 242 lakes, potholes, and steams last year with over 20 million fish and will do the same this year.

Facts on Bullshead, prior to regs changes, 70,000 fish stocked annually, after 5 years of regs changes, now stocked with 20,000 fish. Plain math shows a 50,000 fish lower stocking rate just by having these changes. Based on that there is a possible reduction of 24,000 fish stocked in K lakes. Just between those 2 areas there would be enough money for another CO to be out there as all of us believe there are not enough CO's to do the job.

[Sundancefisher]

Sun - The bows are spawning now. They found thier niche. I guess it isnt too cold for them and there is suitable habitat. Funny how nature works.
STEELHEAD

A small limited number of rainbows that barely registers on the test netting...or the limited 50 spawners in Bolton does not constitute successful spawning from a management perspective... Yes from a general perspective the rare successful spawning happens...but the water is too cold...and the habitat is too limited. That is a fact. Your Three Point, Ware and Pekisko spawning success that drives the population in the Bow River is an example of a successful strong population. LKL is an example of very weak success and therefore there is not significant success to the overall discussion. If spawning success was excellent...then we would not be talking about it...it would be obvious. Barely holding on as a population in other words hardly constitutes success. Still...as this is a put and take fishery...genetics are not a problem...rainbows occupy a similar niche to cutts...cutts and bulls co-exist as nature evolved them to...all is great in the world...are as good as it can be from a population perspective...now let's just bump the 12 inch length to 20 inch. Increase the number of catchable trout...increase the size of the trout we can take home as a meal.

[chubbdarter]

So ppl come from BC to fish our amazing pike and walleye, and albertans head to BC to fish thier big trout in lakes? And working towards creating one or two of these lakes here in alberta, close to calgary, is a bad thing? I have followed this topic since the start and have yet to see anything posted that is a true factual negative to this initiative. Lots of IMHO out there about garbage, traffic, congestion, kids not being able to catch fish, etc. One poster listed another 50 plus lakes and potholes that can be stripped clean of fish for those that like to keep their catches, so I am still missing why changing 2 lakes to stricter regs to promote a quality fishery is such a problem. The SRD stocked 242 lakes, potholes, and steams last year with over 20 million fish and will do the same this year.

Facts on Bullshead, prior to regs changes, 70,000 fish stocked annually, after 5 years of regs changes, now stocked with 20,000 fish. Plain math shows a 50,000 fish lower stocking rate just by having these changes. Based on that there is a possible reduction of 24,000 fish stocked in K lakes. Just between those 2 areas there would be enough money for another CO to be out there as all of us believe there are not enough CO's to do the job.

i see your logic...but with great respect i can almost garantee they will cut the budget on fisheries and build another sauna and rec room on hotel crack downtown. we will never see the savings and it will be hard to regain the budget

[fishpro]

Fishpro - the bows are already spawning. Like the walleyes, they found a niche. Theres no turning back the walleye tide. My views see the rainbows there only getting a bigger population, just like the walleyes. Its already started.


Are you sure about this? It is my understanding that the tributaries only allow a certain amount of spawning due to cold water and simply not enough spawning habitat. If only so many fish can spawn each year, then there is only a certain amount of rainbows that can exist in the system. This is why I believe the rainbows won't get out of control.

[Sundancefisher]

But why isnt anyone petitioning for more money? Wanna see a sign up sheet fill up fast?

I dont agree with more regs anywhere. No matter what the situation. The more we encourage to make new regs, the less money we see come back to fishing.

If you fold to the Gov buy changing regs to fit existing budgets, make free changes and not ask for more money, it will create a trend where there will be NO money going to our fisheries. Much like what is happening now.

I agree we should lobby for more money and make our tax dollars work for us. It is the only thing that will make this all better.

Enhance the fishing everywhere and care for every waterbody and we wont have to worry about quality lakes regs, they will all be quality and more places of quality to spread out the pressure.


Change the regs to suit the 250-300 people who voted yes for these changes, well, thats absurd. It will hurt more than the waters you are trying to protect.

I am still against this proposal.


STEELHEAD
Steelhead says "But why isnt anyone petitioning for more money? Wanna see a sign up sheet fill up fast?"

You have showed no truth or facts to the reduced funding being caused by improving the fishing and protecting the resource through much needed regulations. I just can't see it.

Steelhead say "I dont agree with more regs anywhere. No matter what the situation. The more we encourage to make new regs, the less money we see come back to fishing."

Anarchy is no way to manage anything let along a finite resource like our public fisheries. What regulations if any do you feel are important to protecting our fisheries? Still more money is good for enforcement and research. The question you need to ask yourself is why are YOU not starting a petition asking our MLA's for more money?

Steelhead says "Enhance the fishing everywhere and care for every waterbody and we wont have to worry about quality lakes regs, they will all be quality and more places of quality to spread out the pressure"

That is all fine and good to say in a Utopian situation but in real life things take time. Steps have to be taken. Public has to be educated about what works. Bullshead started the latest eye opening changes. Sometimes baby steps are needed like this. Also sometimes things are not always black and white. Not sure why a 20 inch rule would ever be needed in Mt Lorette ponds for instance. Maybe we need to think outside the box. In a put and take lake that winterkills. Why have a 3 or 5 fish a day limit all year. Most fish go soon after stocking. How about 1 fish a day until Sept 1 then 5 fish a day after that to hoover them out. Mt. Lorette is an interesting example. It was designed with access for wheelchairs yet it is fished mostly by middle aged older adults without disabilities. How about let that fishery stay catch a release to provide fun for the kids in wheelchairs...then come Sept 15...have a liberal limit to clean it out until next year.

We can't just keep sitting back with status quo as the population is growing. There are many users and we can all get along. It is not about C&R guys versus hardware guys, versus flyfishermen, versus bait fishermen... It is about managing fairly for everyone. I fish all the above methods. I just love catching fish...

[GaryF]

I am 100% for more money to the SRD as I think they are so strapped as is. That tho is another can of worms altogether, LOL.

[smitty9]

I agree with the bait ban and bull closure. It did well. It made the lakes what they are today, quality for young and old. Cant get better than that. Why change it?

I, and others, believe it could get better. No point exploring this point further, really.


We can debate this all we want. But why isnt anyone petitioning for more money? Wanna see a sign up sheet fill up fast?


I do! Get'er done. :)


I dont agree with more regs anywhere. No matter what the situation.

I think that is shortsighted since its such a blanket generalization. Every year, you see some lakes opening up or closing down for walleye AND pike harvest. Without new regs, or changes to old ones, you'd have more collapsed fisheries. But I am definitely sympathetic to the an overall point that, where possible, keep the regs as simple as possible.


The more we encourage to make new regs, the less money we see come back to fishing.


One doesn't necessarily follow the other. You haven't established a causal effect here.


I agree we should lobby for more money and make our tax dollars work for us. It is the only thing that will make this all better.

Enhance the fishing everywhere and care for every waterbody and we wont have to worry about quality lakes regs, they will all be quality and more places of quality to spread out the pressure.


Yes, your basic premise is pretty sound.


Change the regs to suit the 250-300 people who voted yes for these changes, well, thats absurd. It will hurt more than the waters you are trying to protect.


Happens all the time in a democracy. Politicians listen to squeaky wheels. They assume 250-300 people may actually translate into higher numbers. On a fisheries issue, not sure how they would do the math, but this is common on hot issues like health and education. Its how this country runs. The majority don't really rule. Its always a small group of people, and we depend on them making decisions that align with our values. For better or for worse.


I am still against this proposal.
STEELHEAD

But of course you are. Tis natural and welcomed since its obvious you and Sun (and me too, but I'll pick Sun instead of me, he's much better than me in framing this debate) both want what's best for AB. And that, at least should be recognized.

Smitty

[steelhead]

Hey Smitty, missed you there,


My fear base is that it will take money away with implementing of free regs. Also the possibility of an invasive overwhealming a system. There is also ALOT of "could" and "maybee" on the pro side also. So were evenly matched.


What is a quality size and who made the decision that that size is the number of quality. To a 5 year old, 10 inches. To a frustrated adult angler, 20 inches. Who matters more? If it was a 5 year old dreaming up that trophy size, it would be 8 inches. If you catch a dozen 10 inchers and one 20 incher, is that a quality fishery? If you catch a hundred 10 inchers, is that a quality fishery? So, we have 250-300 people that believe quality is 20 inches or more. Such a small number of people think quality is bigger.

Since a quality fishery hasnt been introduced that close to a major centre over a million, neither you or I know what will happen. Up there with the "could" and "maybee's" both sides are experiencing.

I said i was for a bait ban. But I will say it again, I am for a bait ban.

Smitty said.....

"I think you've done a splendid job obfuscating the argument with a lot of points that seem either like red herrings or nitpickiness or simply based on conjecture."

So has Sun and many other supporting this. I'm not alone and its not just the Con side.


Thanks Smitty, I write none of this in anger or for retribution. I like that there are some that want better for our fisheries. I wont change your mind and you wont change mine. Understandable. We come from different backgrounds and fishing styles and techniques. No one will ever see eye to eye. But I do thank you for your Half-penny.


Do you think more money and less regs would improve our fisheries as a whole? Monetary focus on other areas to draw pressure from lakes a few now want made to a quality standard? If other species were improved with a monetary injection, do you think less people would fish trout, thereby improving many trout fisheries?


Make other species as easy and plentiful to catch as stocked dink trout, and maybee every pothole and mountain lake would flourish without changes.

Thats what I believe. A free to implement reg will only help one spot.


STEELHEAD

[steelhead]

Alot goes on unnoticed as I write. Sorry for the delays.




We already have regs that work, we have no enforcement and kids and adults still baitfish in bait bans, adults still overlimit, there is little to no public education or public service announcements to warn anglers of the rules, except in the regs, but many never read them and make thier own rules, and the list goes on.


Then we have someone saying anarchy isnt the way to regulate. (sun). Theres anarchy to the existing regs! And it flourishes unchecked!


No facts to what reduced spending does? (sun). Thats all we hear about on these boards both ffcal and here. Get don Anderson on here, He'll tell you all about it. What happened to the walleye stocking program? Random camping, quads, invasives, and no money to fix them and no enforcement to fix the anarchy. Its out of control!

Money will fix that, not more regs.


Maybee i should make a poll to that effect. If the poll garners more than a fifteenhundred hits to lobby for more money, I will take up the challenge to correct it!


For me to take up that cause, I will also need representitives from all Styles of fishing. I am a multi-specie angler. I will need help from Those that fish potholes and lakes for trout, rivers for trout, lakes for pike and walleyes, and rivers for pike and walleyes. No organizations or members of them, they have single tracked and specie agendas that only help themselves. Just caring individuals who want to help it all. And especially not from AFGA. They may as well take fish from thier title, They only focus on hunting (which isnt a bad thing) but thier track record with fish is pitiful.

Find me those guys, get me 15 hundred hits, and I will make a stink.

Like smitty said, strength in numbers and squeeky wheels.


You wanna help smitty, sun?? Smitty said you both care alot. how much do you care?




STEELHEAD

[GaryF]

I believe that there is a lot of confusion in the term "quality fishery". To me a quality fishery is one of a higher fish per hour catch rate as oppossed to size. By limiting the "Harvesting size", the size at which you can take the fish out of the lake, more fish will remain in the lake to be caught, increasing the fish per hour catch rate. I like to catch fish when I am out, not just tossing a line out for excersise. If a lake gets hammered and there are very few fish in it, your fish per hour rate will be very low. Might as well just toss spoons with no hooks on them, your chance of catching a fish is about the same.

This isn't about catching just 20" fish, its about having lots of fish to catch, period. There is no one here that can say they don't want more fish to catch, or have a place to go where they know that they will catch fish and not have to use a atv or pack horse to get there. The problem is that some ppl are still stuck in the "if I catch it I keep it" mentality. Lots of places still out there to do that also if one so wishes.

[Sundancefisher]

Steelhead says: "My fear base is that it will take money away with implementing of free regs."

Please elaborate. I don't understand what you are saying.

Steelhead says: "Also the possibility of an invasive overwhealming a system."

There is no invasive concern here. We are stocking Cutts...which were native before...stocked now and will be stocked in the future. Rainbows while reproducing are not significantly successful...just barely hanging on. Any hybridization concerns are minor as they live in the same niche as cutts. Cutts and bulls and lived together in this lake before people got here. They are evolved to live together.


Steelhead says "What is a quality size and who made the decision that that size is the number of quality. To a 5 year old, 10 inches. To a frustrated adult angler, 20 inches. Who matters more? If it was a 5 year old dreaming up that trophy size, it would be 8 inches. If you catch a dozen 10 inchers and one 20 incher, is that a quality fishery? If you catch a hundred 10 inchers, is that a quality fishery?"

What about when the regulations are implemented and the child catches thirty 12 inchers, twenty 16 inchers, five 21 inchers and two 25 inchers in one day... How does she/he feel? Or likewise...how does the child feel that gets skunked because it is the off year for stocking or the hatchery had problems and stocking missed a year?

Steelhead say: "So, we have 250-300 people that believe quality is 20 inches or more. Such a small number of people think quality is bigger."

Funny thing about polls and petitions. If the majority of people are dead set against them they fight and scream to the death. The fight is intense! However if they think about the changes and the majority likes it then apathy becomes the defining problem as no body complains if they like it...so you get a limited number of community do gooders that put their two cents in along with the remaining opposed that fight tooth and nail. This is where apathy has to be over come and people have to say they approve...or else the negative side prevails.

Steelhead says: "Since a quality fishery hasnt been introduced that close to a major centre over a million, neither you or I know what will happen. Up there with the "could" and "maybee's" both sides are experiencing."

I can assume you mean once successful...how about traffic, parking, litter etc. As a park meant for use...let's hope this is a problem...because it can be mitigated for. Let's hope with increased anglers is also an increased respect for the park and it's protection and management. It may mean increased park staff and increased protection...but at the same time...increased fishermen means increased eyes against abuse.

Steelhead says: " I said i was for a bait ban. But I will say it again, I am for a bait ban."

That is great although there are no changes to the bait ban proposed in this regulation change. Many bait fishermen know only that method...but Bullshead proved that that can easily be overcome. An added benefit is reduced garbage from bait containers.

Smitty said.....

"I think you've done a splendid job obfuscating the argument with a lot of points that seem either like red herrings or nitpickiness or simply based on conjecture."

Steelhead says: Do you think more money and less regs would improve our fisheries as a whole? Monetary focus on other areas to draw pressure from lakes a few now want made to a quality standard? If other species were improved with a monetary injection, do you think less people would fish trout, thereby improving many trout fisheries?:

Depends...if you are saying adding more money to stock more is a band aid solution that will not fix the underlying problem of over harvest and over exploitation. It benefits only a few yet takes the majority of the money. If you are saying to apply more funds to studies drainage or lake specific yearly population dynamics to better assess harvest levels as well as increasing enforcement...I would agree.


Steelhead says: "Make other species as easy and plentiful to catch as stocked dink trout, and maybee every pothole and mountain lake would flourish without changes."

Sounds like you want a utopian ideal of tons of fish everywhere...therefore harvest is spread out and people can fish and harvest to there hearts content. That was the 1940, 50's and 60's. Ever wonder why the old timers say...in the good old days I used to pull 20 giant trout a day from that river and that lake. Now there is nothing left thanks to the new regulations...

[HunterDave]

Facts on Bullshead, prior to regs changes, 70,000 fish stocked annually, after 5 years of regs changes, now stocked with 20,000 fish. Plain math shows a 50,000 fish lower stocking rate just by having these changes. Based on that there is a possible reduction of 24,000 fish stocked in K lakes. Just between those 2 areas there would be enough money for another CO to be out there as all of us believe there are not enough CO's to do the job.

Assuming that your facts are accurate.

Well, I'm no mathematician and I don't know the difference between plain and fancy math but............If you reduce the possession limit from 3 fish to 1 (or 66%), doesn't it make sense that there would be a requirement to stock 66% fewer fish in order to maintain the same fish population? ;)

This proposal is not about saving money or getting more CO's so you might as well take that off of the table now.

[GaryF]

My facts come straight from the srd stocking reports, nothing being manufactured here.

As for the saving of money and more co's not being a topic, you are correct. Neither is garbage, traffic, congestion, all the other if's or maybes. Everyone else is posting on possible negative effects of this change, so I am posting of a possible positive effect. So if my positive is off the table, so are all the negatives, fair?

[HunterDave]

I've taught plenty of kids to spin - with and without bait - but especially to flyfish - had a 3 yr old catch her first fish on a flyrod last summer -, so again, I'll toss out the whole "family/kids" argument for the hogwash it is. There are still plenty - PLENTY - of places in this province, north and south to take kids to catch rainbow trout with a bobber and worm/powerbait.

Who were you thinking about when you typed that? Kananaskis Lakes area is a huge family orientated tourist industry. Do you actually think that campers should drive to a pothole lake from their campsite when they are looking at the Kan Lakes? C'mom smitty.....:snapoutofit:

I mentioned it in an earlier post that the economics had to be studied. If $10K of easy to catch 12" stocked cutts generates $100K in tourist revenue do you think that SRD will change the regs for 300 local adults that want to catch bigger fish....pfffft!

[Sundancefisher]

Who were you thinking about when you typed that? Kananaskis Lakes area is a huge family orientated tourist industry. Do you actually think that campers should drive to a pothole lake from their campsite when they are looking at the Kan Lakes? C'mom smitty.....:snapoutofit:

I mentioned it in an earlier post that the economics had to be studied. If $10K of easy to catch 12" stocked cutts generates $100K in tourist revenue do you think that SRD will change the regs for 300 local adults that want to catch bigger fish....pfffft!

If we want to throw random number scenarios out there... then how about...

Why would SRD not do this simple change if for $5000 less in stocking we get $500,000 in tourist revenue...

Do you think they should not change the regulations out of fear of increased littering?

Common...:snapoutofit:

You realize the improved fishing will attract everyone. You telling me that someone with a 5 year old will look at a lake with high catch rates of cutties between 12 and 25 inches and say...sorry son...that lake is a waste of time... Let's see if there are any fish left in Mt. Lorette Ponds... :snapoutofit::snapoutofit::snapoutofit:

[Sundancefisher]

i see your logic...but with great respect i can almost garantee they will cut the budget on fisheries and build another sauna and rec room on hotel crack downtown. we will never see the savings and it will be hard to regain the budget

To refuse to make fishing better because of politics is impossible to argue against. If we bring religion into the topic...then we can never answer the simple question...do we want to improve the fishing or not in our great Province? If you answer is yes we do that...make positive changes. If you hate the government...exercise you electoral rights. If you can help create a strong lobby group of sportsmen starting with this issue...you can show the government a united voter block that would scare Ed silly. A fractured group is no group...just a mindless mob. You can't change government by complaining about social programs while undermining our fisheries.

IMHO

[steelhead]

Sun said....



"Sounds like you want a utopian ideal of tons of fish everywhere...therefore harvest is spread out and people can fish and harvest to there hearts content."



Yes, I do want that. Everyone here wants that. We all have to go to other provinces to get it. Other provinces have that and not just BC. Other provinces have that and spend and collect the money for that and dont just throw the money for that into the one provincial everything wallet. We should have it here, and we can have it here. The regs are fine. Stricter than the utopian provinces. We need enforcement and enhancement spending, and alot of it and we will have the utopia. Tis a shame you dont feel the same way. But thats exactly how the Gov has conditioned us to feel about our fisheries. And we all fall for it.



Hunterdave just discussed GaryF's post. Gary posted the stocking data from bullshead. The lack of stocking saved the Gov alot according to the data. Did those savings pay for more co's? Did it pay for a decade dead walleyes stocking program for many lakes, not just 4 lakes of which 2 are unfishable by public? Did it pay for someone to manage the parks surrounding the lakes and potholes and river accesses? Did it pay to remove perch from infested lakes? Did it pay to get excellent data on our fisheries as opposed to flawed, out of date dribble? Did it pay to stop poachers? Did it pay for public signage, education and public service anouncements? Did it pay to remove beaver dams?

No, it got cut out of this years fish budget, just like it has done for the past 15 years. Its lower again. Lost and gone forever cause our Gov found a way to save. Never to return. We just lost 50,000 fish that could have gone to another place to help. Or, we just lost that CO that GaryF dreamed might materialized with the savings.


Are you seeing what special regs do as a whole? Not just in one or 2 instances of it doing good, but how it hurts as a whole? These regs hurt. Thank GaryF for that great example.


Not interested in responding to your other comments, they are beaten to death and even you dont even know the answers as they are just as much a baseless view and a bunch of "probablies" as mine seem to be. I know this as neither one of us has a crystal ball.




STEELHEAD

[HunterDave]

Happens all the time in a democracy. Politicians listen to squeaky wheels. They assume 250-300 people may actually translate into higher numbers. On a fisheries issue, not sure how they would do the math, but this is common on hot issues like health and education. Its how this country runs. The majority don't really rule. Its always a small group of people, and we depend on them making decisions that align with our values. For better or for worse.

Interesting interpretation of how a democracy works.

IMHO The only way that you guys are going to get anywhere with this proposal is to do your homework and present a case to support your position. I highly doubt that anyone is going to do it for you. If you could, through your local Fishing Club, convince an organization like AFGA (+/- 20K members) to support your proposal you would have a better chance of it going somewhere. But, to walk in to SRD and hand them a petition with 300 unverified names on it supporting a change to the regs in Kan Lakes based on, "Cuz it worked in Bullhead Reservoir", well, good luck with that.

[Sundancefisher]

Sun said....



"Sounds like you want a utopian ideal of tons of fish everywhere...therefore harvest is spread out and people can fish and harvest to there hearts content."

Yes, I do want that. Everyone here wants that. We all have to go to other provinces to get it. Other provinces have that and not just BC. Other provinces have that and spend and collect the money for that and dont just throw the money for that into the one provincial everything wallet. We should have it here, and we can have it here. The regs are fine. Stricter than the utopian provinces. We need enforcement and enhancement spending, and alot of it and we will have the utopia. Tis a shame you dont feel the same way. But thats exactly how the Gov has conditioned us to feel about our fisheries. And we all fall for it.
STEELHEAD

I believe I see the disconnect in your logic. You want the same fishing for trout in Alberta as your probably see in BC. The problem is under your logic you are comparing apples to oranges. We can never have the same level of trout fishing here as we just don't have the same numbers of lakes, streams and rivers as BC is blessed with. Therefore with more people and fewer waters to fish...the fishing pressure in Alberta is much higher. People complain all the time on this board about someone spreading the word on the internet about good fishing...then the place is inundated and the fishing sucks there after cause all the fish were harvested. This is the whole resource exploitation versus population dilemma. We need different regulations than BC because we are different.

You misread the facts and assume that because BC has a user pay and manage system that all the money goes back in and that is what creates the utopian fishing in BC when compared to Alberta. Your solution of throwing money at a problem...rarely if ever works in the short term...let alone the long term.

Simple as that.

[Sundancefisher]

Hunterdave just discussed GaryF's post. Gary posted the stocking data from bullshead. The lack of stocking saved the Gov alot according to the data. Did those savings pay for more co's? Did it pay for a decade dead walleyes stocking program for many lakes, not just 4 lakes of which 2 are unfishable by public? Did it pay for someone to manage the parks surrounding the lakes and potholes and river accesses? Did it pay to remove perch from infested lakes? Did it pay to get excellent data on our fisheries as opposed to flawed, out of date dribble? Did it pay to stop poachers? Did it pay for public signage, education and public service anouncements? Did it pay to remove beaver dams?
STEELHEAD

Most if not all departments got cut as a response to the economic problems we see happening. Money into the government is money we pay in taxes and fees. Can someone confirm what the total number of stocked fish have been over the last 10 years? Is it increasing each year or decreasing? Curious. Steelhead...since this is your argument...please provide this information. Steelhead...please provide the Fisheries budget portion of F&W for the past 10 years. That is a great place to start versus your conjecture.

Maybe someone from F&W can let us know how the yearly breakdown is covered. Or maybe Steelhead can provide this to show how many beaver dams they did remove...how many infractions were processed...how many studies were done (creel, population etc.).

You don't like get guesses or conjecture...but you seem to give them fine.

[chubbdarter]

sun you can twist and type far better than any of us......simply put i dont need reg changes for trout to catch trophy size rainbows let alone 20 inchers......you obviously do, so i wish you the very best in your quest to design a fishery that allows you to be successful.

thanks for the always entertaining chats....

i got kfc...priceless

[HunterDave]

If we want to throw random number scenarios out there... then how about...

Why would SRD not do this simple change if for $5000 less in stocking we get $500,000 in tourist revenue...

Do you think they should not change the regulations out of fear of increased littering?

Common...:snapoutofit:

You realize the improved fishing will attract everyone. You telling me that someone with a 5 year old will look at a lake with high catch rates of cutties between 12 and 25 inches and say...sorry son...that lake is a waste of time... Let's see if there are any fish left in Mt. Lorette Ponds... :snapoutofit::snapoutofit::snapoutofit:

You don't have a clue of what I'm saying do you? Any numbers that anyone posts on here are random if you haven't done your homework and you don't know the difference. :lol: But if you did, you might find that the money that is spent on stocking is recovered 10.....20....or 30 fold in revenue. You might even find out that it's advantageous to keep spending the money on stocking every year and allowing people to catch them right away

It might come as a surprise to you but not everyone goes to Kan Lakes for the fishing. Allot of people go camping to spend time with their families. If they happen to go fishing with their kids do you think that Mom and Dad care if junior catches a big fish to eat? Mom & Dad and especially Junior would be just as happy to catch a small fish that they could cook up on the fire. If you don't understand that then you are beyond repair.

As for the littering question that's just, well, garbage.

[Sundancefisher]

sun you can twist and type far better than any of us......simply put i dont need reg changes for trout to catch trophy size rainbows let alone 20 inchers......you obviously do, so i wish you the very best in your quest to design a fishery that allows you to be successful.

thanks for the always entertaining chats....

i got kfc...priceless

Ouch... LOL

Yes we know...to catch big fish you go to Kootenay. Those of us that want to stay and play in Alberta...want to see some improvement to the stock em and killem rules for one spot that has the factors that meet the guidelines for a greatly improved quality fishery...here...in Alberta. You should be the poster child for Tourism BC. I think Kootenay Lake should get increased traffic from all the hype of the big monsters there. Do you use a guide and fish deep?

[steelhead]

Doing my thinking for me again. Thanks, but your not getting anything I stand for as I mentioned previously.


I am a multi-specie angler. That means i fish all species, not just trout. I care what happens to all species, not just trout.

I was waiting for someone to throw the "not as many fishable waters as other provinces" comment in. I kinda knew it would be you. I can see why you think i have the disconnect problem.


Another red herring the Gov wants us to believe is the problem with our province. No sir, that isnt the problem with the fisheries. The problem is funding and enforcement. You can throw that government conditioned comment right out of the ice shack.


Sun wrote

"You misread the facts and assume that because BC has a user pay and manage system that all the money goes back in and that is what creates the utopian fishing in BC when compared to Alberta. Your solution of throwing money at a problem...rarely if ever works in the short term...let alone the long term.

Simple as that. "

Some of that money does go back into BC's fishery, here it goes to fighting forest fires.


I bet you havent fished many other provinces(other than BC), followed other provinces fishing boards, or see what other provinces do to maintain an all around quality fishery have you? According to your posts and input from the last 6 years, I know you havent. You go to BC and way south for your fishing, and your community pond. I rarely, if ever, see you mention any other fishing you did in Alberta.


The solution of throwing money at a problem is the answer nowadays to create quality as proven in other provinces. Even BC has figured out that thier fisheries are not self-sustainable and they spend to keep the quality. As we all see in this province compared to others, no money means less quality, and alot more complaints. And I'm not just talking trout! Perch in this trout lake, quads muddying those rivers cause theres no bridges, rampant poaching on our lakes, Shoreline habitat destruction, Commercial fishing and on and on. So the gov makes more rules and doesnt enforce them. And they offer no money to enforce them.

It takes money, simple as that!

[GaryF]

Steelhead, over the past 3 years of stocking, srd has stocked 121 million fish into AB waters, with the bulk of them being walleye(112 million). How much more fish should the govt raise before we have to realize that we can't just continue fishing places dry?? We've just gotten used to the govt constantly replacing what we over fish. How do we stop over fishing? Stricter regs is the only way to go. People need to understand the limits of what we have. Stocking should be used to help repair a fishery when nature kicks its butt certain years, not because we don't know when a fish is too small or when we've taken too much. And thats just MHO

[HunterDave]

......simply put i dont need reg changes for trout to catch trophy size rainbows let alone 20 inchers......you obviously do, so i wish you the very best in your quest to design a fishery that allows you to be successful.

Well, making it easier to catch bigger fish pretty much sums it up doesn't it?

[Sundancefisher]

You don't have a clue of what I'm saying do you? Any numbers that anyone posts on here are random if you haven't done your homework and you don't know the difference. :lol: But if you did, you might find that the money that is spent on stocking is recovered 10.....20....or 30 fold in revenue. You might even find out that it's advantageous to keep spending the money on stocking every year and allowing people to catch them right away

It might come as a surprise to you but not everyone goes to Kan Lakes for the fishing. Allot of people go camping to spend time with their families. If they happen to go fishing with their kids do you think that Mom and Dad care if junior catches a big fish to eat? Mom & Dad and especially Junior would be just as happy to catch a small fish that they could cook up on the fire. If you don't understand that then you are beyond repair.

As for the littering question that's just, well, garbage.

Please provide the link that shows specifically that spending $10,000 on stocking generates $100,000 in revenue. I would love to read it. Now the question is...are people spending the dollars to just find fish? Is that economic spin off limited until the fish run out and can we extend the benefits through a prolonged harvest. Will benefits increased if people can catch bigger fish here than driving to Kootenay Lake? You are not hearing this. I am hearing you but I am looking big picture...you are looking small picture.

More conjecture over kids catching fish and wanting to catch and kill any fish regardless of size. Then I postulate...those kids will be amazed by the bigger fish or tons more smaller fish and learn conservation in the process. Catching a keeper will feed the family. Catching small easy to catch fish is still available at Elbow Lake which has easy access. The whole family can take 5 brookies home each...and bonus...they CAN USE BAIT THERE. If you are fixed so tightly to an image of a kid being disappoint about catching 30 cutties and not being able to kill one...you are lost. If killing one is so critical...again...what is the big deal about going to Elbow Lake for instance? Looking to the future...harvestable fish will be available... Currently regulations means any trout less than 12 inches...can't be kept. I have not heard any complaints about not killing an 8 inch trout.

I have also stated there is lots of other activities...and fishing is just one usage.

I agree...let's toss the whole garbage idea is the waste can. It is an irrelevant issue.

[chubbdarter]

Ouch... LOL

Yes we know...to catch big fish you go to Kootenay. Those of us that want to stay and play in Alberta...want to see some improvement to the stock em and killem rules for one spot that has the factors that meet the guidelines for a greatly improved quality fishery...here...in Alberta. You should be the poster child for Tourism BC. I think Kootenay Lake should get increased traffic from all the hype of the big monsters there. Do you use a guide and fish deep?


hahahahhahahhahahaahahahahhhaaa

you could be the poster child for lake sundance.
did you dump in those perch so you could become famous?
good luck making kan into a koot.
i already posted for you how i fish koot....nah no guide....but i'd highly recomeend you get one

sun have a great fishing season i hope all your dreams come true.

i think kfc pieces are getting smaller

p.s. please hold im on flyfish calgary them boys have no problems catching 20 inchers

[smitty9]

Who were you thinking about when you typed that? Kananaskis Lakes area is a huge family orientated tourist industry. Do you actually think that campers should drive to a pothole lake from their campsite when they are looking at the Kan Lakes? C'mom smitty.....:snapoutofit:


Lol...HunterDave. I suppose its easy to try and make a point if you can cherry pick. If catch rates go up (previous poster about defining a quality fishery as such) and the avg size goes up, AND the kid has a shot at taking one big fish home, its win-win-win. Sorry that simple logic escapes you. Please read the post more carefully and skip the presumptions.

Or at least read Barry Mitchell's AB guide. ULK and LKL aren't the only "games in town" when it comes to fishing K-country. No one - certainly not me is telling anyone to go fish or they must fish only prairie potholes. By the way, who says or why must the concept of quality fisheries be limited to prairie potholes. Talk about limiting your vision...

Again, massive lakes, big potential, and some people adopt an approach of NIMBY or lets pretend its just another 25 acre pothole. Unfortunate.

Smitty

[Sundancefisher]

Doing my thinking for me again. Thanks, but your not getting anything I stand for as I mentioned previously.


I am a multi-specie angler. That means i fish all species, not just trout. I care what happens to all species, not just trout.

I was waiting for someone to throw the "not as many fishable waters as other provinces" comment in. I kinda knew it would be you. I can see why you think i have the disconnect problem.


Another red herring the Gov wants us to believe is the problem with our province. No sir, that isnt the problem with the fisheries. The problem is funding and enforcement. You can throw that government conditioned comment right out of the ice shack.


Sun wrote

"You misread the facts and assume that because BC has a user pay and manage system that all the money goes back in and that is what creates the utopian fishing in BC when compared to Alberta. Your solution of throwing money at a problem...rarely if ever works in the short term...let alone the long term.

Simple as that. "

Some of that money does go back into BC's fishery, here it goes to fighting forest fires.


I bet you havent fished many other provinces(other than BC), followed other provinces fishing boards, or see what other provinces do to maintain an all around quality fishery have you? According to your posts and input from the last 6 years, I know you havent. You go to BC and way south for your fishing, and your community pond. I rarely, if ever, see you mention any other fishing you did in Alberta.


The solution of throwing money at a problem is the answer nowadays to create quality as proven in other provinces. Even BC has figured out that thier fisheries are not self-sustainable and they spend to keep the quality. As we all see in this province compared to others, no money means less quality, and alot more complaints. And I'm not just talking trout! Perch in this trout lake, quads muddying those rivers cause theres no bridges, rampant poaching on our lakes, Shoreline habitat destruction, Commercial fishing and on and on. So the gov makes more rules and doesnt enforce them. And they offer no money to enforce them.

It takes money, simple as that!

Look at a map...compare lakes in BC to lakes in Alberta near major urban centers. It will become clear to you about the lack of lakes in Southern Alberta.

You keep insinuating most stocked trout are poached. If you are seeing this...how often are you reporting it? I frankly have fished lots over the years...I do not see it...and I watch for it.

Please give us the information on stocking I asked for. Let's compare the number of lakes and numbers of fish stocked in Alberta versus BC. Then we can talk about your conjectures. I think we will find the actual data interesting.

Apparently BC stocks 8 million fish into 900 rivers/lakes. There is a hard fact for you.

BC
http://www.gofishbc.com/whatwedo.htm
"Freshwater fishing is an important recreational and economic activity. Approximately 400,000 licensed anglers spend $400-500 million on freshwater fishing in B.C. each year. Recent surveys show that about one-half of the angler effort in fresh water takes place on lakes stocked by Society hatcheries."

Alberta

So ppl come from BC to fish our amazing pike and walleye, and albertans head to BC to fish thier big trout in lakes? And working towards creating one or two of these lakes here in alberta, close to calgary, is a bad thing? I have followed this topic since the start and have yet to see anything posted that is a true factual negative to this initiative. Lots of IMHO out there about garbage, traffic, congestion, kids not being able to catch fish, etc. One poster listed another 50 plus lakes and potholes that can be stripped clean of fish for those that like to keep their catches, so I am still missing why changing 2 lakes to stricter regs to promote a quality fishery is such a problem. The SRD stocked 242 lakes, potholes, and steams last year with over 20 million fish and will do the same this year.

Facts on Bullshead, prior to regs changes, 70,000 fish stocked annually, after 5 years of regs changes, now stocked with 20,000 fish. Plain math shows a 50,000 fish lower stocking rate just by having these changes. Based on that there is a possible reduction of 24,000 fish stocked in K lakes. Just between those 2 areas there would be enough money for another CO to be out there as all of us believe there are not enough CO's to do the job.

So...what is Alberta doing wrong? We have fewer lakes and are stocking almost 300% more? I thought I read that our licensing revenue is only about $100 MM compared to the $400-500 MM in BC. As I mentioned before...you are arguing apple to oranges against a great initiative in our Province. Why?

I don't agree with your argument that to improve fishing in Alberta we need 80,000,000 fish stocked. Would you pay $300 for a yearly license to cover costs? How about being fair and make a two tier licence. $50 if catch and release...and $700 to cover the right to kill a sustainable limit and bonus fish stocked?

[Sundancefisher]

hahahahhahahhahahaahahahahhhaaa

you could be the poster child for lake sundance.
did you dump in those perch so you could become famous?
good luck making kan into a koot.
i already posted for you how i fish koot....nah no guide....but i'd highly recomeend you get one

sun have a great fishing season i hope all your dreams come true.

i think kfc pieces are getting smaller

p.s. please hold im on flyfish calgary them boys have no problems catching 20 inchers

I would not know how to fish Kootenay Lake. You betcha I would need a guide.

[HunterDave]

Please provide the link that shows specifically that spending $10,000 on stocking generates $100,000 in revenue. I would love to read it. Now the question is...are people spending the dollars to just find fish? Is that economic spin off limited until the fish run out and can we extend the benefits through a prolonged harvest. Will benefits increased if people can catch bigger fish here than driving to Kootenay Lake? You are not hearing this. I am hearing you but I am looking big picture...you are looking small picture.

More conjecture over kids catching fish and wanting to catch and kill any fish regardless of size. Then I postulate...those kids will be amazed by the bigger fish or tons more smaller fish and learn conservation in the process. Catching a keeper will feed the family. Catching small easy to catch fish is still available at Elbow Lake which has easy access. The whole family can take 5 brookies home each...and bonus...they CAN USE BAIT THERE. If you are fixed so tightly to an image of a kid being disappoint about catching 30 cutties and not being able to kill one...you are lost. If killing one is so critical...again...what is the big deal about going to Elbow Lake for instance? Looking to the future...harvestable fish will be available... Currently regulations means any trout less than 12 inches...can't be kept. I have not heard any complaints about not killing an 8 inch trout.

I have also stated there is lots of other activities...and fishing is just one usage.

I agree...let's toss the whole garbage idea is the waste can. It is an irrelevant issue.

You still don't get it. If YOU don't have the facts then YOUR proposal is doomed before it even begins. I shouldn't need to look for any facts. They should all be listed on this thread so I can decide whether or not I support your proposal. If you go into a meeting to present your proposal I hope that you have your act together because if you go into it with the same idea that the party should do your research for you............

Great idea about teaching the kids about conservation BTW. Yup, keep only the spawning sized fish and throw all of the smaller eating sized ones back. No wonder some kids have no idea about anything!

You can't see the big picture if you have tunnel vision. The big picture includes the social, economic and environmental impact of such a study. The small picture is "This proposal will allow the fish to grow bigger." I'm not sure if you can grasp that or not?

[Sundancefisher]

When you have more lakes...your spread out the fishing pressure...when you spread out the fishing pressure...you can harvest more fish... Still...a lot of my buddies that fish BC...put their trout back. That also needs to be factored in. The harvest folks get great benefit from the catch and release folks. If everyone harvested...we would probably be on a tag limit for all species in Alberta.

[Sundancefisher]

You still don't get it. If YOU don't have the facts then YOUR proposal is doomed before it even begins. I shouldn't need to look for any facts. They should all be listed on this thread so I can decide whether or not I support your proposal. If you go into a meeting to present your proposal I hope that you have your act together because if you go into it with the same idea that the party should do your research for you............

Great idea about teaching the kids about conservation BTW. Yup, keep only the spawning sized fish and throw all of the smaller eating sized ones back. No wonder some kids have no idea about anything!

You can't see the big picture if you have tunnel vision. The big picture includes the social, economic and environmental impact of such a study. The small picture is "This proposal will allow the fish to grow bigger." I'm not sure if you can grasp that or not?

I can't argue your made up facts. You need to use some common sense.

Your economic argument...With economic value decrease or increase with better fishing? Please...you seriously going to say decrease?

Your social argument...what a kid is going to cry because of catching fish...but not one big enough that day?

Your environmental argument? Already covered...your species argument..bogus. They are already there? Your point has not been clarify as to what the problem is? You are not thinking big picture but trying to throw a tattered blanket over the positive points hoping someone will buy your Swiss cheese logic.

Please conservation...throwing back big fish that mother nature grew in a put and take lake...you throwing a spawning argument at me? Get real. If you are talking bull trout...that is a different story. Stocked cutties...no...kill em over 20 inches if you want to eat em!

[HunterDave]

Alright, I'll lead you down the garden path. List 4 reasons why your proposal is a good idea:

1. It'll make it easier to catch bigger fish;
2.
3.
4.
5.

[Sundancefisher]

You still don't get it. If YOU don't have the facts then YOUR proposal is doomed before it even begins. I shouldn't need to look for any facts. They should all be listed on this thread so I can decide whether or not I support your proposal. If you go into a meeting to present your proposal I hope that you have your act together because if you go into it with the same idea that the party should do your research for you............


BC stocks 8 million fish into 900 rivers/lakes.
SRD stocked 242 lakes, potholes, and steams last year with over 20 million fish.

Geez...so few fish stocked in BC...for such awesome fishing... Why is that? More lakes...better regulations? Hmmmm..

[chubbdarter]

Alright, I'll lead you down the garden path. List 4 reasons why your proposal is a good idea:

1. It'll make it easier to catch bigger fish;
2.
3.
4.
5.


my eyes are bleeding now.....he will type 50 pages....hhhhhahahahhahhha...dave your a sadist...lol

[Sundancefisher]

Alright, I'll lead you down the garden path. List 4 reasons why your proposal is a good idea:

1. Increased catch rates
2. Increased economic benefits
3. Creation of a quality fishery near a major urban area
4. Increased usage will improve enforcement through extra eyes
5. Delayed harvest means more stable fishing
6. Increased fish sizes
7. Lake meets suitability for quality fishery
8. Stocking of native cutties will compliment ecosystem
9. Increased tourism and park usage
10.Increased usage for fishing will highlight the benefits to the government



I will hit the sack now...but hopefully other guys pro regs can add a few more...but these are good uns. :-)

How many do you need.

Alright, to be fair...please list a comparable number of reasons why this is not a good idea:

1. Can't catch only small fish anymore...
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

[HunterDave]

BC stocks 8 million fish into 900 rivers/lakes.
SRD stocked 242 lakes, potholes, and steams last year with over 20 million fish.

Geez...so few fish stocked in BC...for such awesome fishing... Why is that? More lakes...better regulations? Hmmmm..

I don't know, you tell me.

[HunterDave]

my eyes are bleeding now.....he will type 50 pages....hhhhhahahahhahhha...dave your a sadist...lol

Yes, but will it contain anything noteworthy. :lol:

[HunterDave]

I will hit the sack now...but hopefully other guys pro regs can add a few more...but these are good uns. :-)

How many do you need.

Alright, to be fair...please list a comparable number of reasons why this is not a good idea:

1. Can't catch only small fish anymore...
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

You only needed 4 other reasons! You can't even give four reasons?

That's pretty much what I thought. It wasn't really fair though because I already used the only good one that I've seen posted on here.

You sleep on it Sundance and I'll check again tomorrow. :D

[HunterDave]

You only needed 4 other reasons! You can't even give four reasons?

That's pretty much what I thought. It wasn't really fair though because I already used the only good one that I've seen posted on here.

You sleep on it Sundance and I'll check again tomorrow. :D

You must have hit the edit button as I replied as I see there are now 10 points that are listed. :)

[HunterDave]

Top Ten Reasons Why Sundance Thinks That This Proposal is a Good Idea:

1. Increased catch rates (Yes, the same illegal to keep fish could potentially be caught numerous times)
2. Increased economic benefits (Assumption)
3. Creation of a quality fishery near a major urban area (No, it's already a quality fishery - Opinion)
4. Increased usage will improve enforcement through extra eyes (Assumption)
5. Delayed harvest means more stable fishing (No, it's already stable - Opinion)
6. Increased fish sizes (No, the fish won't get any bigger than the ones already in the lake, there will just be more of them. No study done to support this point)
7. Lake meets suitability for quality fishery (Yes, since it already is one. However, there is no study done to determine the ramifications of having more large fish in the lakes)
8. Stocking of native cutties will compliment ecosystem (No, they are already there and are being stocked)
9. Increased tourism and park usage (Assumption)
10.Increased usage for fishing will highlight the benefits to the government (Say what? :confused: Assumption....I think?)

Of course, like everything in life, everyone will draw their own conclusions and by no means do I consider my opinion factual. That being said, by my count I get: 2 Yes, 4 No and 4 assumptions.

The good news is that there can't be any wrong answers. :sHa_shakeshout: The question asked was why you thought the proposal was a good idea and all that you had to do was answer to be correct. They are after all what you think.

The bad news is that if this question had been asked at a presentation to promote this proposal you would have failed miserably. Unless of course you had the facts to support what I classed as no or assumptions.

[GaryF]

This was pulled off of one of the SRD round table meeting miutes,

Provincial Policy on Delayed Harvest
�� Of the 293 lakes stocked with trout, there are only 4 or 5 lakes that have delayed-harvest regulations. There have been some successes on small lakes (e.g. Bullshead, Muir, Ironside, Beaver)
�� On these sites it was the responsibility of the sponsor group to develop but SRD should take on the role of developing delayed harvest fisheries.
�� The government should identity where there are significant numbers of anglers that want this type of management. The number of lakes managed for delayed harvest should reflect the interest of the regional and local anglers and be strategically placed throughout the province.


So with that info, why would adding 2 more to the list of regulated lakes hurt? There would still be 286 other stocked lakes throughout the province to harvest any fish from.

Hunterdave, I also look forward to seeing your top 10 list of why this is a bad idea. Sun provided his top ten for why it is good, and its been disected by you. I would like to see your list so I can do the same. There have been a few of my posts that I have made that I awaited a response on from, that you and other vocal opponents on this thread have chosen to not comment on for whatever reason. I too can poke holes in everything, so I patiently await your list.

[Sundancefisher]

You must have hit the edit button as I replied as I see there are now 10 points that are listed. :)

No...you were just too quick to judge without reading the facts presented and instead trying to belittle a posters position. Which in all fairness...is not what debating is all about.

BC and Alberta are different...hence different regulations. It is only fair to give each jurisdiction a quality fishery after the demand shown from Bullhead. As there are few to no alternatives outside of UKL and LKL these become the best choice purely for that reason alone.

With so many other fishing alternatives pointed out by other posters for people wanting just small fish...it is only fair.

[Sundancefisher]

This was pulled off of one of the SRD round table meeting miutes,

Provincial Policy on Delayed Harvest
�� Of the 293 lakes stocked with trout, there are only 4 or 5 lakes that have delayed-harvest regulations. There have been some successes on small lakes (e.g. Bullshead, Muir, Ironside, Beaver)
�� On these sites it was the responsibility of the sponsor group to develop but SRD should take on the role of developing delayed harvest fisheries.
�� The government should identity where there are significant numbers of anglers that want this type of management. The number of lakes managed for delayed harvest should reflect the interest of the regional and local anglers and be strategically placed throughout the province.


So with that info, why would adding 2 more to the list of regulated lakes hurt? There would still be 286 other stocked lakes throughout the province to harvest any fish from.

Hunterdave, I also look forward to seeing your top 10 list of why this is a bad idea. Sun provided his top ten for why it is good, and its been disected by you. I would like to see your list so I can do the same. There have been a few of my posts that I have made that I awaited a response on from, that you and other vocal opponents on this thread have chosen to not comment on for whatever reason. I too can poke holes in everything, so I patiently await your list.

I was hoping he would respond also. Quick to judge...slow to give his factual reasons why this should not be done.

Funny how something that makes common sense is a weak assumption in some posters eyes.

[Sundancefisher]

Yes, but will it contain anything noteworthy. :lol:

chubdarter...HunterDave...

Please can we attack the topic and not the person. It would be a shame if we lost the focus of the debate and the Mods shut it down. I enjoy both your posts for various reasons when they stay on topic. If you have run out of points to make...I have no problem stepping back unless from our debate unless some else has any questions.

I believe there is enough back on forth on the same points that people can read the arguments and decide what seems a reasonable thought process to agree to try or not try the proposal.

Steelhead...the data for stocking rates is here...

BC stocks 8 million fish into 900 rivers/lakes.
SRD stocked 242 lakes, potholes, and steams last year with over 20 million fish.

About $100 MM in licencing fees in Alberta and $400 - 500 for BC. How would you envision spending more to produce more stocking to feed the demand? Increased fees?

There are 3.7 MM people in Alberta. There is about 4.5 MM people in BC. I suspect there is a higher percentage of fishermen in BC...but maybe not.

[chubbdarter]

chubdarter...HunterDave...

Please can we attack the topic and not the person. It would be a shame if we lost the focus of the debate and the Mods shut it down. I enjoy both your posts for various reasons when they stay on topic. If you have run out of points to make...I have no problem stepping back unless from our debate unless some else has any questions.

I believe there is enough back on forth on the same points that people can read the arguments and decide what seems a reasonable thought process to agree to try or not try the proposal.

Steelhead...the data for stocking rates is here...

BC stocks 8 million fish into 900 rivers/lakes.
SRD stocked 242 lakes, potholes, and steams last year with over 20 million fish.

About $100 MM in licencing fees in Alberta and $400 - 500 for BC. How would you envision spending more to produce more stocking to feed the demand? Increased fees?

There are 3.7 MM people in Alberta. There is about 4.5 MM people in BC. I suspect there is a higher percentage of fishermen in BC...but maybe not.


i have only returned fire after you have fired upon me first......back read.
i realize you probably have connections to admin so your hint is well taken.
i will leave this discussion with respect to the forum.
have a great fishing season. i wish you the very best.
cd

[Sundancefisher]

Caught 2 bullies one day two summers ago in Chain lakes. none since.far fewer suckers there now but it appears they are on the rise again so perhaps they could stock a few Bulls again...Back to Kananaskis...it would be nice to not have to drive in to the kootenays to catch a decent trout-most people probably feel the same by the looks of the poll so far...D.

I remember catching 10 suckers for every trout if you bait was anywheres near the bottom. I always set the Cubs up to fish 4 feet off bottom. Changed the ratio significantly to 5 trout for every sucker. Still it was a great place to go to readily catch tons of 10 inch rainbows.

I wonder if F&W ever checked to see if the bullies found a place to spawn in the upper Willow.

[steelhead]

Top 10 reasons why its a bad idea.


1. Protected specie in lake (bulls). Possible miss-identification of species causing harm to protected fish.

2. Small percentage of park users are anglers. With so many quality fisheries existing, rise in angling on lake will show no marketable rise.

3. This lake has show to already be a quality fishery. Bulls can be caught with great regularity and well over the Quality size.

4. Flawed and out of date catch data the base of reasons why this is a good choice for a quality lake. Proper and in depth yearly research for a number of years before quality fishery should be designated.

5. Depths of species in summer months are generally too deep for shore anglers to have advertized higher catch rates. Thats the nature of those 2 species.

6. Downstream migration of fish possible and will result in a loss of fish. All other choices for quality fisheries are closed systems.

7. Forage base for the larger fish this lake will produce is comprimised due to fluctuating water levels. If over population of large fish occurs, leaner less healthy fish.

8. Stocking of cutts in a system containing Bulls. You are stocking the top of the list, main prey of bulltrout. Bull trout will feed on newly stocked and lake stupid fish. Great potential for loss of stocked fish.

9. Because of the distance from border crossings into BC and Sask., and the small populations in these other provinces close to these crossings, potential for out of province visitors to use this resource is slim to nil. Many quality fisheries close to these crossings to accomodate out of provincers.

10. Quality lakes were and are made to fit where no oppourtunities existed in the past and in closed systems. (bullshead-med hat, muir-edmonton,) This site is surrounded by many quality fisheries already. Not much of a draw for visitors when other places exist with less visitors to encounter on an outing.



And SUN's top 10 again.......


1. Increased catch rates
2. Increased economic benefits
3. Creation of a quality fishery near a major urban area
4. Increased usage will improve enforcement through extra eyes
5. Delayed harvest means more stable fishing
6. Increased fish sizes
7. Lake meets suitability for quality fishery
8. Stocking of native cutties will compliment ecosystem
9. Increased tourism and park usage
10.Increased usage for fishing will highlight the benefits to the government





I could have come up with 10 better reasons than that (in fact, I also made up 10 better reasons why its a good thing just for kicks). Lots of opinion and no research in your top 10. Your job is to convince me and the rest of the John Q Public why its a great thing, and that 10 list gets a failing grade.


I still dont agree with this proposal.


STEELHEAD

[Heron]

Thanks to GaryF, smitty9 and of course Sun for your efforts and common sense. I have a few thoughts...

I’ll add an11th point about why it would be good. Its success will serve as another badly needed example of what works and why we need way more of these special reg. lakes.

I think there is some validity to the fact that a high quality lake near a million people would draw more people and their associated problems. I know this because Muir which is a success, is a different kind of fishing experience due to the volume of people that fish there. That is why there needs to be WAY more delayed harvest waters. 293 stocked waters and 4 or 5 with delayed harvest is a joke. I would support 1/3 of all stocked waters going immediately to a delayed harvest. Since I am dreaming here and get to make up the rules lets start by making most of these delay harvest lakes at 16” retention and perhaps 10 lakes at 20” retention. Not very far down the road that will put a lot more fish of decent eating size in frying pans. That still leaves 198 lakes for the people who like to eat 9” fish. As acceptance and realization sets in, that could be changed later. How would this get enforced? More enforcement from dollars saved on stocking, and civic duty. I believe most people will follow the laws because it is their civic duty. Ya lots will break the rules but so what. Dollars saved can also perhaps go to larger fish being stocked and more diverse stocking. Why do I have to go to Saskatchewan to catch a tiger trout? More triploids anyone? Am I nuts?

So to get this past just blabbering on the internet, what suggestions does anyone have for a person to get more involved?

[HunterDave]

Yes, but will it contain anything noteworthy. :lol:

chubdarter...HunterDave...

Please can we attack the topic and not the person. It would be a shame if we lost the focus of the debate and the Mods shut it down.

WOW Sundance! Your first post today was 8 hours ago and 2 hours later you post this? :scared: If you consider my comment above a personal attack on you then I suggest that you read it again. My comment was about the content of the list that I was waiting for you to post and not about you. Interesting interpretation though.

Since I know that you are a Mod I can read between the lines of your post. :lol:

[Sundancefisher]

Top 10 reasons why its a bad idea.


1. Protected specie in lake (bulls). Possible miss-identification of species causing harm to protected fish. So you are proposing to stop stocking all Cutties in the lakes and exterminating all rainbows trying to spawn...even though...cutties are natural to the system and evolved to co-exist with bulls? I Don't get it. It is just wrong. Your argument fails.

2. Small percentage of park users are anglers. With so many quality fisheries existing, rise in angling on lake will show no marketable rise. There are no quality fisheries around here... Closest are Bullshead and Police Outpost. Sorry... You are not computing based upon simple geography. Maybe you are just calling a 12 inch fishery quality as a play on words... I don't buy it and suggest being fair to the Quality Fishery terminology. A fishery with a 20 inch minimum size before harvest. The numbers of anglers will increase with better fishing. Other fisheries have shown that to be the case. You can disagree...but then you have no comparison to understand our point as you have not fished bullshead. Your argument fails.

3. This lake has show to already be a quality fishery. Bulls can be caught with great regularity and well over the Quality size. Kind of copied this from 2 above did you not...but let's call it a different number. Same answer as above. Your argument still fails.

4. Flawed and out of date catch data the base of reasons why this is a good choice for a quality lake. Proper and in depth yearly research for a number of years before quality fishery should be designated. You try and countradict trained, experienced and educated biologist. No body believes you are the best person to say what science is good or bad. The majority will believe the trained scientists and not you. Therefore your opinion on scientific data being credible or not is based solely from an uninformed lay person and holds little merit. Your argument fails.

5. Depths of species in summer months are generally too deep for shore anglers to have advertized higher catch rates. Thats the nature of those 2 species. This point does not make sense. What do you mean? People catch fish all year. Cutts feed closer to the surface. What data are you making up here? Your argument fails.

6. Downstream migration of fish possible and will result in a loss of fish. All other choices for quality fisheries are closed systems. Strange...this has been stocked repeatedly over the years with little to no escapement downstream. I have fished below the dam and...you should also. Then you will know from experience this is not the case. Plus stocking reservoirs occurs all over. There is no data to support mass escaping fish. Good try though but holds no weight as an argument. Your argument fails.

7. Forage base for the larger fish this lake will produce is comprimised due to fluctuating water levels. If over population of large fish occurs, leaner less healthy fish. Provincial biologist if they chose this as a quality fishery will study the stocking densities just like at Bullshead to optimize the fishery. The mysis provide ample food for growing larger trout. Implementing the new regulations and attracting more fishermen will put more pressure on the dam owners to better regulate the water levels for the recreational user. While this is already in the works...the more pressure the better. Your argument fails.

8. Stocking of cutts in a system containing Bulls. You are stocking the top of the list, main prey of bulltrout. Bull trout will feed on newly stocked and lake stupid fish. Great potential for loss of stocked fish. Nice to contradict yourself. First you say we are going to harm them... Then later on you say we will feed them. Please pick one bad argument and stick with it. The same basic principle holds true that cutties and bulls evolved together. Letting the cutts actually grow then contradicts your argument once again....bulls definitely can't eat larger cutties. Again...your argument outright fails.

9. Because of the distance from border crossings into BC and Sask., and the small populations in these other provinces close to these crossings, potential for out of province visitors to use this resource is slim to nil. Many quality fisheries close to these crossings to accomodate out of provincers. I am sorry. I was not aware of one of your principle reasons for not agreeing to improved fishing near Calgary was to protect BC and Saskatchewan's right to better fishing. I suspect most readers are trying to improve fishing for Albertans first. Spins off for tourism in the area is an added benefit. Making a better fishery will make for more tourism. But...saying you want to make a better fishery to get BC residents to drive to Alberta...this sounds more like a teaser argument than a serious one. Your argument fails.

10. Quality lakes were and are made to fit where no oppourtunities existed in the past and in closed systems. (bullshead-med hat, muir-edmonton,) This site is surrounded by many quality fisheries already. Not much of a draw for visitors when other places exist with less visitors to encounter on an outing. I am sorry...but maybe you do not understand the nature of the "quality fishery". All lakes in the Calgary area that are stocked have either no size limit or a 12 inch size limit. There are no lakes with a 20 inch minimum size limit. Sorry you missed that point near the beginning of the discussion threads. I attach the premise again below here for your reference. Plus this is the same as your No. 2 and 3. Your argument fails for the third time. STEELHEAD

From my calculation that is 10 fails... 0 pass. You should at least say the increase traffic issue...as that is going to happen with an improved fishery. I will add that for you and bump you to 1 pass.

This is fun...

Sun

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

[Sundancefisher]

chubdarter...HunterDave...

Please can we attack the topic and not the person. It would be a shame if we lost the focus of the debate and the Mods shut it down.

WOW Sundance! Your first post today was 8 hours ago and 2 hours later you post this? :scared: If you consider my comment above a personal attack on you then I suggest that you read it again. My comment was about the content of the list that I was waiting for you to post and not about you. Interesting interpretation though.

Since I know that you are a Mod I can read between the lines of your post. :lol:

Please read the full context of the dialog leading up. Yes...you do start to swing it in a negative way...but still I am impressed we have all stayed pretty good. Probably a record of sorts for such a heated topic. I would just like to keep it that way.

And not sure why you think I am a Mod.

Cheers

Sun

[HunterDave]

So to get this past just blabbering on the internet, what suggestions does anyone have for a person to get more involved?

Post #93

IMHO The only way that you guys are going to get anywhere with this proposal is to do your homework and present a case to support your position. I highly doubt that anyone is going to do it for you. If you could, through your local Fishing Club, convince an organization like AFGA (+/- 20K members) to support your proposal you would have a better chance of it going somewhere. But, to walk in to SRD and hand them a petition with 300 unverified names on it supporting a change to the regs in Kan Lakes based on, "Cuz it worked in Bullhead Reservoir", well, good luck with that.

'Nuff said.:)

[Sundancefisher]

Post #93

IMHO The only way that you guys are going to get anywhere with this proposal is to do your homework and present a case to support your position. I highly doubt that anyone is going to do it for you. If you could, through your local Fishing Club, convince an organization like AFGA (+/- 20K members) to support your proposal you would have a better chance of it going somewhere. But, to walk in to SRD and hand them a petition with 300 unverified names on it supporting a change to the regs in Kan Lakes based on, "Cuz it worked in Bullhead Reservoir", well, good luck with that.

'Nuff said.:)

I agree with HunterDave.

This is just an interesting forum to gauge and assess the publics opinion before someone takes it to the next step. I would contact the orginal poster that I quoted above to start and see what help they need now and in the future. If you have contacts at other Fishing Associations...it doesn't hurt to make them aware and start thinking about the topic and signing the petition...and HunterDave's most excellent poll.

[HunterDave]

And not sure why you think I am a Mod.

My bad....I had you confused with lilsundance.:)

[steelhead]

Wow, after reading your responses to my top 10 list, i now feel you should not be the one spearheading this initiative. Epic fail.


I'm not against Quality fisheries. If this was to happen to Dewitts pond, Allan Bill or Crossfield, i would be all over it and sign a yes. But your choice of lakes and reasons are very weak.


Have fun with this Sun. Make us proud.



STEELHEAD

[Sundancefisher]

My bad....I had you confused with lilsundance.:)

LOL

Now you can stop going so easy on me.:argue2:

just to confirm...we are also not related.:scared0018:

[Sundancefisher]

Wow, after reading your responses to my top 10 list, i now feel you should not be the one spearheading this initiative. Epic fail.


I'm not against Quality fisheries. If this was to happen to Dewitts pond, Allan Bill or Crossfield, i would be all over it and sign a yes. But your choice of lakes and reasons are very weak.


Have fun with this Sun. Make us proud.



STEELHEAD

Not me spearheading fortunately. Just very interested in the topic.

Allen Bill pond...these fisheries will not support a quality fishery due to the lake size IMHO. I have fished it many times. A very small food base as well.

Maybe the orginal poster or someone can enlighten us on the whole quality fishery guidelines.

There are some points here.
http://www.srd.alberta.ca/ManagingPrograms/FishWildlifeManagement/FisheriesManagement/Default.aspx

The question was asked by HunterDave I believe that what value does 260 names mean in the scope of all the fishermen in Alberta.

A big survey done on this very topic of quality fisheries is here. As I suspected and with all surveys...it is very hard to fight apathy. The fact so many that responded yes is excellent as usually the negatives can win in these races if the opposition is fierce.

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/ManagingPrograms/FishWildlifeManagement/FisheriesManagement/documents/QualityStockedFisheriesResults-Sep-08.pdf

Question: The Quality Stocked Trout Fisheries Program should be expanded?

376 respondents.

76.29% agreed to more quality fisheries.

Additional background information.

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/ManagingPrograms/FishWildlifeManagement/FisheriesManagement/documents/QualityFisheriesSurveyBackground.pdf

Sorry...no one posted this info before.

Sun

[HunterDave]

I'm not against Quality fisheries. If this was to happen to Dewitts pond, Allan Bill or Crossfield, i would be all over it and sign a yes. But your choice of lakes and reasons are very weak.

x2 I can't comment on the bodies of water specifically mentioned however I am in total agreement with the rest of the statement.

[Sundancefisher]

x2 I can't comment on the bodies of water specifically mentioned however I am in total agreement with the rest of the statement.

Did you find the number of respondents interesting on the wider survey. Just goes to show how hard it is to run a survey and fight past the apathy...and how in fact 265 names...with minimal Province wide advertising shows a fairly good response. You have to admit.

How about you list a wider range of lakes that fall within Calgary's general area and see where that leads. Maybe you have a better location that simply...someone missed or did not think of. Think about over wintering, food supply, location/distance from Calgary, access, size...etc.

[HunterDave]

Did you find the number of respondents interesting on the wider survey. Just goes to show how hard it is to run a survey and fight past the apathy...and how in fact 265 names...with minimal Province wide advertising shows a fairly good response. You have to admit.

How about you list a wider range of lakes that fall within Calgary's general area and see where that leads. Maybe you have a better location that simply...someone missed or did not think of. Think about over wintering, food supply, location/distance from Calgary, access, size...etc.

I didn't really find the number of respondents a surprise because "This draft paper was made available, on the My Wild Alberta website for public comment through the month of September 2008." Either you saw the post or you didn't. Had SRD conducted a campaign to gather as may respondents as possible, I'm sure that they would have received allot more input. For that reason I don't think that it was as much apathy about the survey as much as it being ignorance to it even being conducted.

Why would I want to research all of the bodies of water in the area of Calgary to determine which ones would be suitable for the type of fishery that you are endorsing? That's part of the beauty of not being on the side of a new proposal. It is up to the people proposing the change to convince people that their cause is just. If they can't and it goes to a vote then all that anyone has to do is vote no with no requirement for an explanation. :)

If you are saying that there are no other bodies of water other than Kan Lakes in the Calgary area suitable for this type of proposal then you should state that as one of your reasons for having it there.

[GaryF]

Top 10 reasons why its a bad idea.


1. Protected specie in lake (bulls). Possible miss-identification of species causing harm to protected fish. I agree this could be a problem, but since they exist already in the lakes as you state in item 3 the problem is neglegible if they are growing to well over the proposed size limit already. Large signs at the entrances to these lakes explaining what a bull trout is will help this.

2. Small percentage of park users are anglers. With so many quality fisheries existing, rise in angling on lake will show no marketable rise. Please tell me which lakes you are classifying as quality, and what your definition of quality is.

3. This lake has show to already be a quality fishery. Bulls can be caught with great regularity and well over the Quality size. Please refer to item 5 of your list. Can you catch fish regularily or not in K Lakes?

4. Flawed and out of date catch data the base of reasons why this is a good choice for a quality lake. Proper and in depth yearly research for a number of years before quality fishery should be designated. If this petition gets that started by showing the interest in making this a special regs lake, its a positive first step. They won't just make a change because of a petition, but it will ge the ball rolling.

5. Depths of species in summer months are generally too deep for shore anglers to have advertized higher catch rates. Thats the nature of those 2 species. See Item 3 in your list.

6. Downstream migration of fish possible and will result in a loss of fish. All other choices for quality fisheries are closed systems. Bullhead is a resevoir with and overflow spillway. You have stated it is a closed system, which it is not. So unfortunately this argument is not applicable here, as you seem to agree that bullshead is a quality fishery now.

7. Forage base for the larger fish this lake will produce is comprimised due to fluctuating water levels. If over population of large fish occurs, leaner less healthy fish. Is there a study of this somewhere that I can read so there is some backing up of this statement?

8. Stocking of cutts in a system containing Bulls. You are stocking the top of the list, main prey of bulltrout. Bull trout will feed on newly stocked and lake stupid fish. Great potential for loss of stocked fish. This is already being done. But you are insisting that K lakes is already a quality fishery as is with the current stocking and regulations, so you are contradicting yourself.

9. Because of the distance from border crossings into BC and Sask., and the small populations in these other provinces close to these crossings, potential for out of province visitors to use this resource is slim to nil. Many quality fisheries close to these crossings to accomodate out of provincers. As with my one post on that snippet from the SRD Meeting, the concern is for local and regional anglers, not visitors. I could care less if anyone from outside of AB comes to fish these lakes. Sure would be nice to not have to drive 4 hours from home tho to get to a quality fishery. and yes I have explained my view already on what one is to me.

10. Quality lakes were and are made to fit where no oppourtunities existed in the past and in closed systems. (bullshead-med hat, muir-edmonton,) This site is surrounded by many quality fisheries already. Not much of a draw for visitors when other places exist with less visitors to encounter on an outing. I refer back to my comments in items 2 and 9

Hunterdave, still waiting on your list pls. Everything you have asked for has been attempted to be given to you, so now in all fairness I still am waiting on your list.

[HunterDave]

Hunterdave, still waiting on your list pls. Everything you have asked for has been attempted to be given to you, so now in all fairness I still am waiting on your list.

Okay, give me a few minutes.

[chubbdarter]

Dave your wife called...she says intervention is on......lol...bahawabahawa

[Sundancefisher]

Dave your wife called...she says intervention is on......lol...bahawabahawa

I lived in Cardiff Echoes just outside Morinville. Not a rip roaring town. Give Dave a break. He is probably having more fun the whole rest of the town put together.

He has had 18 hours to build his list. It is going to blow us all away.

[HunterDave]

My Top Ten Reasons Why I do NOT support This Proposal:

1. I refuse to endorse anything that isn't well thought out and studied.
2. There has been nothing substantial presented by anyone endorsing this proposal that indicates to me that it is a good idea.
3. There has been no study of the lake to determine what the ramifications would be of having more large fish in it.
4. There has been no study done on the economic impact such a proposal would have on the tourist industry and local businesses in the Kan Lakes area.
5. No one has been consulted in the Kan Lakes area to get a clear indication of what the users of the area would want.
6. SRD has not been contacted to confirm whether or not there's a legitimate reason for the current regs to be in place as they are.
7. Possession rates will be slashed 66%.
8. Mortality rates of easy to catch smaller fish could potentially increase due to fish trauma associated with catch and release requirements.
9. It is a poor lesson in conservation to teach young anglers to keep large spawning sized fish and not smaller eating sized ones.
10.IMHO this point isn't required so I'll just throw it away...........plus I'm lazy. :lol:

[GaryF]

My Top Ten Reasons Why I do NOT support This Proposal:

1. I refuse to endorse anything that isn't well thought out and studied. Studies never get started without a petition such as this being presented to show interest in change. Waiting for the govt to do it by themselves will never work. Being pro-active in change to get these studies started is better than sitting back waiting.
2. There has been nothing substantial presented by anyone endorsing this proposal that indicates to me that it is a good idea. This is just a personal opinion of yours and does not add anything to any one individuals own decision.
3. There has been no study of the lake to determine what the ramifications would be of having more large fish in it. See my reply to item one.
4. There has been no study done on the economic impact such a proposal would have on the tourist industry and local businesses in the Kan Lakes area. See reply to item one, also having a high quality fishery will not keep ppl away, but bring them in. I have yet to meet anyone on the planet that fishes say "lots of fish to catch, I'm staying away from there"
5. No one has been consulted in the Kan Lakes area to get a clear indication of what the users of the area would want. Once again, item one.
6. SRD has not been contacted to confirm whether or not there's a legitimate reason for the current regs to be in place as they are. K lakes fall under the general guidlines of the stocking program. There is nothing special in the regs that aren't in place for other stocked lakes. But once again, having this petition brought forth will bring light to this area to get these answers.
7. Possession rates will be slashed 66%. Only on these 2 lakes leaving another 286 for ppl to harvest the daily limit of 5. PS BC's regs limit the daily catch to 2, 1, or none depending on the body of water, and only a possesion limit of twice your daily limit. Much better regs IMO and what we should have here in AB.
8. Mortality rates of easy to catch smaller fish could potentially increase due to fish trauma associated with catch and release requirements. Where can I find the study on these facts?
9. It is a poor lesson in conservation to teach young anglers to keep large spawning sized fish and not smaller eating sized ones. But its better to fish out the small ones so that they can't get to spawning size? Lots of fish become sexually mature prior to being 20" long, others become 20" long prior to sexaul maturity. Will dig up some biological text books for you to read on that.
10.IMHO this point isn't required so I'll just throw it away...........plus I'm lazy.


So far you have presented nothing in your top ten to inidcate why this petition and proposal is negative. Most of all of your list is personal feelings, not scientific data as you keep asking for. You are against the proposal based on numerous assumptions, but yet tell those of us for the proposal that we need scientific data to back us up. This proposal will hopefully put in motion these additional studies that you require. But once they are started/completed, your opinion will no longer matter as a decision will be made on those studies.

[steelhead]

Yer turn GaryF. Lets hear your top 10.

[Sundancefisher]

My Top Ten Reasons Why I do NOT support This Proposal:

1. I refuse to endorse anything that isn't well thought out and studied.
2. There has been nothing substantial presented by anyone endorsing this proposal that indicates to me that it is a good idea.
3. There has been no study of the lake to determine what the ramifications would be of having more large fish in it.
4. There has been no study done on the economic impact such a proposal would have on the tourist industry and local businesses in the Kan Lakes area.
5. No one has been consulted in the Kan Lakes area to get a clear indication of what the users of the area would want.
6. SRD has not been contacted to confirm whether or not there's a legitimate reason for the current regs to be in place as they are.
7. Possession rates will be slashed 66%.
8. Mortality rates of easy to catch smaller fish could potentially increase due to fish trauma associated with catch and release requirements.
9. It is a poor lesson in conservation to teach young anglers to keep large spawning sized fish and not smaller eating sized ones.
10.IMHO this point isn't required so I'll just throw it away...........plus I'm lazy. :lol:

You could of just summarized with one...

Your point 10... I just don't understand or believe anything that has been talked about to date so I would rather just say no.

Which for all that is said...that summarizes the above...and I can live with that as your main or only concern. Some people are just scared of change or things that they can't fully understand. This is a big picture proposal.

The rest of us will hopefully consolidate our opinions to the point we believe it has merit and ask F&W to consider this and probably even address some if not all of your points above. Volunteers usually have neither the skills nor the time nor the education or science background to put together what you have asked in the detail you so desire. While some positive points may be common sense and easily accepted with some thought...let's see what people say and then in turn what feedback F&W gives the proposal. Not sure when that will occur.

You know that if you have a great idea at work and your boss wants you to study it to death...that nothing will ever get done. Sometimes you have to move it forward and see what happens. We benefit from the proof that this works elsewhere (Bullshead)...but...if this for some unexpected reason does not work...you can start a petition to reverse the regulations. :-)

This is a great idea for a readily accessible quality fishery near Calgary.

Cheers

Sun.

P.S. I could easily pick the rest of your points apart...but I will leave this to some else to have fun...for now.

[HunterDave]

My Top Ten Reasons Why I do NOT support This Proposal:

1. I refuse to endorse anything that isn't well thought out and studied. Studies never get started without a petition such as this being presented to show interest in change. Waiting for the govt to do it by themselves will never work. Being pro-active in change to get these studies started is better than sitting back waiting.
2. There has been nothing substantial presented by anyone endorsing this proposal that indicates to me that it is a good idea. This is just a personal opinion of yours and does not add anything to any one individuals own decision.
3. There has been no study of the lake to determine what the ramifications would be of having more large fish in it. See my reply to item one.
4. There has been no study done on the economic impact such a proposal would have on the tourist industry and local businesses in the Kan Lakes area. See reply to item one, also having a high quality fishery will not keep ppl away, but bring them in. I have yet to meet anyone on the planet that fishes say "lots of fish to catch, I'm staying away from there"
5. No one has been consulted in the Kan Lakes area to get a clear indication of what the users of the area would want. Once again, item one.
6. SRD has not been contacted to confirm whether or not there's a legitimate reason for the current regs to be in place as they are. K lakes fall under the general guidlines of the stocking program. There is nothing special in the regs that aren't in place for other stocked lakes. But once again, having this petition brought forth will bring light to this area to get these answers.
7. Possession rates will be slashed 66%. Only on these 2 lakes leaving another 286 for ppl to harvest the daily limit of 5. PS BC's regs limit the daily catch to 2, 1, or none depending on the body of water, and only a possesion limit of twice your daily limit. Much better regs IMO and what we should have here in AB.
8. Mortality rates of easy to catch smaller fish could potentially increase due to fish trauma associated with catch and release requirements. Where can I find the study on these facts?
9. It is a poor lesson in conservation to teach young anglers to keep large spawning sized fish and not smaller eating sized ones. But its better to fish out the small ones so that they can't get to spawning size? Lots of fish become sexually mature prior to being 20" long, others become 20" long prior to sexaul maturity. Will dig up some biological text books for you to read on that.
10.IMHO this point isn't required so I'll just throw it away...........plus I'm lazy.


So far you have presented nothing in your top ten to inidcate why this petition and proposal is negative. Most of all of your list is personal feelings, not scientific data as you keep asking for. You are against the proposal based on numerous assumptions, but yet tell those of us for the proposal that we need scientific data to back us up. This proposal will hopefully put in motion these additional studies that you require. But once they are started/completed, your opinion will no longer matter as a decision will be made on those studies.

Actually, every point on the list that I wrote was indeed a fact and none of it was an assumption or an opinion. That's the way that I roll. :sHa_shakeshout:

[HunterDave]

P.S. I could easily pick the rest of your points apart...but I will leave this to some else to have fun...for now.

No ya can't and that's why you didn't do it. Facts can't be argued with. Opinions can but facts cannot. At best, you could reply to the facts as "Yes, but.......".

C'mon! Bring it on. :lol:

[Sundancefisher]

Actually, every point on the list that I wrote was indeed a fact and none of it was an assumption or an opinion. That's the way that I roll. :sHa_shakeshout:

ROTFLMAO...

I wish you were the Calgary Flames coach. We can use that kind of blind optimism on that team.

[HunterDave]

8. Mortality rates of easy to catch smaller fish could potentially increase due to fish trauma associated with catch and release requirements. Where can I find the study on these facts?
http://www.acuteangling.com/Reference/C&RMortality.html

Key Mortality Factors

Two factors predominate when considering the causes of angled fish mortality: the hooking location, and the degree of physiological stress suffered by the fish.

Hooking location - This factor demonstrates the largest source of variation in mortality observed in the studies and experiments reviewed. It is consistently shown that deep-hooking (hooking in the gills or gullet) causes relatively high mortality, up to 35% when accompanied by bleeding, whereas normal hooking (lips or jaw area) consistently causes minimal mortality, which is consistently less than 5% and often less than 1%. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources, in its Recreational Catch and Release Mortality research program concludes that the location of the hook wound is the single most important factor influencing catch and release mortality (4). If the hook wound affects a vital organ, mortality, is high. The location of the wound site has been demonstrated to be a function of hook size, type, the use of natural bait versus artificial lures and additional situational factors. Studies show that when fish are hooked in the lips or jaw area (shallow hooked), mortality is negligible, typically less than 1% (4,5). Conversely, mortality is at its highest when fish are hooked in the esophagus or gills (deep hooked) (5,11). Necropsies performed on gut hooked fish in a study by (5) Grover, et al, found that the majority had sustained major internal damage to the heart, stomach or liver. Grover demonstrates that hooking location effectively correlates to mortality rate.

Physiological Stress - Exercise performed by fish during a catch event, or caused by angler handling methods and air exposure all create measurable physiological responses. Physiological stress in fish has been measured by experimenters using cortisol, lactate and respiratory gas concentrations.

Although the catch and release mortality studies reviewed do not show statistical results directly correlating the degree of physiological stress to mortality, an experiment by Ferguson and Tufts examined the effects of artificially induced stress on rainbow trout. They concluded that various forms of physiological stress contribute to fish mortality (12). It is reasonable to infer that such stress also contributes to mortality in angled fish and therefore, that minimization of stress assists in reduction of catch and release mortality.

[HunterDave]

9. It is a poor lesson in conservation to teach young anglers to keep large spawning sized fish and not smaller eating sized ones. But its better to fish out the small ones so that they can't get to spawning size? Lots of fish become sexually mature prior to being 20" long, others become 20" long prior to sexaul maturity. Will dig up some biological text books for you to read on that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_fisheries

".......a group of scientists offered the following ten commandments for ecosystem-based fisheries scientists[36]
“
Keep a perspective that is holistic, risk-adverse and adaptive.
Maintain an “old growth” structure in fish populations, since big, old and fat female fish have been shown to be the best spawners, but are also susceptible to overfishing.
Characterize and maintain the natural spatial structure of fish stocks, so that management boundaries match natural boundaries in the sea.
Monitor and maintain seafloor habitats to make sure fish have food and shelter.
Maintain resilient ecosystems that are able to withstand occasional shocks.
Identify and maintain critical food-web connections, including predators and forage species.
Adapt to ecosystem changes through time, both short-term and on longer cycles of decades or centuries, including global climate change.
Account for evolutionary changes caused by fishing, which tends to remove large, older fish.
Include the actions of humans and their social and economic systems in all ecological equations.” "

[Sundancefisher]

http://www.acuteangling.com/Reference/C&RMortality.html

Key Mortality Factors

Two factors predominate when considering the causes of angled fish mortality: the hooking location, and the degree of physiological stress suffered by the fish.

Hooking location - This factor demonstrates the largest source of variation in mortality observed in the studies and experiments reviewed. It is consistently shown that deep-hooking (hooking in the gills or gullet) causes relatively high mortality, up to 35% when accompanied by bleeding, whereas normal hooking (lips or jaw area) consistently causes minimal mortality, which is consistently less than 5% and often less than 1%. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources, in its Recreational Catch and Release Mortality research program concludes that the location of the hook wound is the single most important factor influencing catch and release mortality (4). If the hook wound affects a vital organ, mortality, is high. The location of the wound site has been demonstrated to be a function of hook size, type, the use of natural bait versus artificial lures and additional situational factors. Studies show that when fish are hooked in the lips or jaw area (shallow hooked), mortality is negligible, typically less than 1% (4,5). Conversely, mortality is at its highest when fish are hooked in the esophagus or gills (deep hooked) (5,11). Necropsies performed on gut hooked fish in a study by (5) Grover, et al, found that the majority had sustained major internal damage to the heart, stomach or liver. Grover demonstrates that hooking location effectively correlates to mortality rate.

Physiological Stress - Exercise performed by fish during a catch event, or caused by angler handling methods and air exposure all create measurable physiological responses. Physiological stress in fish has been measured by experimenters using cortisol, lactate and respiratory gas concentrations.

Although the catch and release mortality studies reviewed do not show statistical results directly correlating the degree of physiological stress to mortality, an experiment by Ferguson and Tufts examined the effects of artificially induced stress on rainbow trout. They concluded that various forms of physiological stress contribute to fish mortality (12). It is reasonable to infer that such stress also contributes to mortality in angled fish and therefore, that minimization of stress assists in reduction of catch and release mortality.

Same can apply to those you hook but don't land...those you play too long with poor tackle selection...trebles versus single...barbed versus unbarbed.

No problems have been seen with these regs at Bullshead.

Still...one fact you have missed... The current practice of killing everything caught after stocking...has a way, way higher mortality rate.

The mortality rate you are referring to is easily mitigated with the stocking densities that F&W biologists will optimize.

Unless you are referring to PETA's demand of no catch and release fishing period. Is that your stance?

I have personally caught and release the same very large trout in a private put and take lake more than 20 or 30 times. The trout is still swimming to be caught again. Same applies to numerous other trout greater than 20 inches.

This argument of yours is a very weak one as to why to not improve a fishery but you do support PETA at least.

[Sundancefisher]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_fisheries

".......a group of scientists offered the following ten commandments for ecosystem-based fisheries scientists[36]
“
Keep a perspective that is holistic, risk-adverse and adaptive.
Maintain an “old growth” structure in fish populations, since big, old and fat female fish have been shown to be the best spawners, but are also susceptible to overfishing.
Characterize and maintain the natural spatial structure of fish stocks, so that management boundaries match natural boundaries in the sea.
Monitor and maintain seafloor habitats to make sure fish have food and shelter.
Maintain resilient ecosystems that are able to withstand occasional shocks.
Identify and maintain critical food-web connections, including predators and forage species.
Adapt to ecosystem changes through time, both short-term and on longer cycles of decades or centuries, including global climate change.
Account for evolutionary changes caused by fishing, which tends to remove large, older fish.
Include the actions of humans and their social and economic systems in all ecological equations.” "

Again...you are not looking at the big picture...just trying to cloud the common sense facts.

On one hand you are advocating killing the trout when they are small as this is a put and take lake...therefore very little chance they will spawn period.

The proposed change to provide a readily accessible quality fishery near Calgary will allow the delayed harvest of Cutties after 20 inches. Prior to reaching 20 inches they will have a chance to spawn at least and maybe for a couple of seasons before harvesting is possible. Harvesting before at 12 inches...no chance at all to spawn.

Now factor in that this is a stocked put and take lake...not being proposed now or in the past as a lake regulated for harvest based upon natural reproduction and replacement fisheries management.

So what are you saying... Now you want to slash harvest dramatically in order to allow successful natural spawning and population replacement/recruitment? You want to allow harvest of only cutties less than 12 inches and if they grow bigger then they will be released to spawn?

Your arguments are so all over the map...you make reasonable debate sometimes taxing...but always interesting.

Good try on this one...but IMHO you have failed to make a valid point.

P.S.

I am getting seriously concerned you are against put and take fisheries based upon leading arguments like this.

[HunterDave]

9. It is a poor lesson in conservation to teach young anglers to keep large spawning sized fish and not smaller eating sized ones. But its better to fish out the small ones so that they can't get to spawning size? Lots of fish become sexually mature prior to being 20" long, others become 20" long prior to sexaul maturity. Will dig up some biological text books for you to read on that.

More info on keeping smaller "eater" sized fish and letting the bigger "spawner" sized ones go:

http://www.ffc.org.au/FFC_files/Sustainable_fishing_edu_files/web_pdfs/2_BOFFFF_web.pdf

"Many fishers have understood the need to let the big breeders go for a long time now.....

What does BOFFFF mean?
BOFFFF = Big Old Fat Fecund Female Fish
BOFFFF are the larger, older females which, according
to recent research results, generally produce a lot more
offspring, more times per year, than younger females do.
Additionally, the offspring of larger females are often
healthier and more likely to survive. Older fi sh are more
likely to survive and contribute in the ‘bad years’ when
environmental factors mean reduced recruitment to the fish
stocks. For many species, one of the best ways to ensure long
term successful reproduction and replenishment of the fi sh
stocks is to protect the larger, healthy female breeders."

[fishpro]

More info on keeping smaller "eater" sized fish and letting the bigger "spawner" sized ones go:

http://www.ffc.org.au/FFC_files/Sustainable_fishing_edu_files/web_pdfs/2_BOFFFF_web.pdf

"Many fishers have understood the need to let the big breeders go for a long time now.....

What does BOFFFF mean?
BOFFFF = Big Old Fat Fecund Female Fish
BOFFFF are the larger, older females which, according
to recent research results, generally produce a lot more
offspring, more times per year, than younger females do.
Additionally, the offspring of larger females are often
healthier and more likely to survive. Older fi sh are more
likely to survive and contribute in the ‘bad years’ when
environmental factors mean reduced recruitment to the fish
stocks. For many species, one of the best ways to ensure long
term successful reproduction and replenishment of the fi sh
stocks is to protect the larger, healthy female breeders."

I completely understand where you are coming from, and you have a very valid concern. There are two main things that keep this from being a necessary consideration.

First of all, the lakes are going to be continually stocked. This is not about trying to establish a self sustaining fishery where it will be important to release the spawners. The population will be maintained through spawning.

Secondly, with the high numbers of anglers per lake in Alberta compared to other provinces, there is another issue to consider. This is that if we protected larger fish and allowed small fish to be harvested, it is likely that very few would make it to a size where they were actually protected.

The fact of the matter is, we are not trying to create a trophy fishery with a self sustaining population. Currently with the regulations how they are, we have lots of fish in the 6"-13" range, with a few over since the size limit is 12". Now if we change the size limit 20", we will have a lake with lots of fish in the 6"-21" range with a few over.

For these reasons, I don't think we need to worry about protecting the spawners. Additionally, very few of these large fish will be spawning anyway.

[HunterDave]

Same can apply to those you hook but don't land...those you play too long with poor tackle selection...trebles versus single...barbed versus unbarbed. So then it's okay to potentially kill more by making it illegal to keep a smaller fish that are gut hooked?

No problems have been seen with these regs at Bullshead. Kan Lakes are not Bullshead

Still...one fact you have missed... The current practice of killing everything caught after stocking...has a way, way higher mortality rate. I doubt it if you catch your 3 fish and go cook them up on the fire. But, if you have to catch and release 10 fish before catching one big legal to keep one then the potential for fish dying unnecessarily increases.

The mortality rate you are referring to is easily mitigated with the stocking densities that F&W biologists will optimize. Yeah, just through more fish in. We don't need the money for more CO's, etc as was previously posted.

Unless you are referring to PETA's demand of no catch and release fishing period. Is that your stance? Oh, yeah! HUNTERDave is one of them PETA guys! Very good and valid point! :bad_boys_20:

I have personally caught and release the same very large trout in a private put and take lake more than 20 or 30 times. The trout is still swimming to be caught again. Same applies to numerous other trout greater than 20 inches. Yet you want the regs to change so it'll be easier for you to catch bigger (+20"). What is your plan, let them all go after you've caught them? :lol:

This argument of yours is a very weak one as to why to not improve a fishery but you do support PETA at least. Don't you just hate it when someone makes a valid point and then provides the facts to support it? :angry3:
:test:

[fishpro]

HunterDave, you wrote the following: "I doubt it if you catch your 3 fish and go cook them up on the fire. But, if you have to catch and release 10 fish before catching one big legal to keep one then the potential for fish dying unnecessarily increases."

Please look at the previous studies you posted about hooking mortality. It talks about standard hooking (not gill or gut hooking) as having very low mortality rates. This is why a bait ban is in effect. Very few fish are hooked deep enough with non bait techniques, and as such there is very low mortality. For your situation of catching and releasing 10 fish before getting a keeper having a higher mortality rate than keeping the first three, you would need a mortality rate about 20% on the released fish. This simply is not going to happen when bait it not being used.

[madatter]

A dead fish is a dead fish....
It cannot grow bigger and has no chance to spawn,most everybody can understand that I hope!
Mortality at Bullshead appears to be very low considering the pressure on the lake,I can't even remember ever seeing a trout with a deep set hook either.

[HunterDave]

I completely understand where you are coming from, and you have a very valid concern. There are two main things that keep this from being a necessary consideration.

First of all, the lakes are going to be continually stocked. This is not about trying to establish a self sustaining fishery where it will be important to release the spawners. The population will be maintained through spawning.

Secondly, with the high numbers of anglers per lake in Alberta compared to other provinces, there is another issue to consider. This is that if we protected larger fish and allowed small fish to be harvested, it is likely that very few would make it to a size where they were actually protected.

The fact of the matter is, we are not trying to create a trophy fishery with a self sustaining population. Currently with the regulations how they are, we have lots of fish in the 6"-13" range, with a few over since the size limit is 12". Now if we change the size limit 20", we will have a lake with lots of fish in the 6"-21" range with a few over.

For these reasons, I don't think we need to worry about protecting the spawners. Additionally, very few of these large fish will be spawning anyway.

Fishpro - IMO Fish conservation should not be dismissed based on the assumption that SRD is just going to keep putting more fish in anyway. I have read on this thread that 12" rainbow trout have been caught in L Kan Lake. This is despite the fact that it hasn't been stocked with rainbows since 2002. If what I have read is true, then the Rainbows have/are spawning.

I understand that fishing pressure in Alberta is very high and I accept that. However, if you protected larger spawning sized fish you would have a constant supply of smaller eater sized fish. Only a small percentage of the smaller stocked fish need to reach maturity to offset the mortality rate of the larger bigger fish.

This is not a novel idea and it is accepted worldwide.

IMO if anglers in this province truly want to improve the fishery then attitudes need to change. Handouts of stocked fish is not the answer except perhaps for pothole lakes with no possibility for spawning to occur. In the lakes that fish do have the environment to spawn, even if it is limited, then they should be given the chance to do so. I would suggest that efforts to create a better spawning habitat in those lakes, including Kan Lakes, along with appropriate fish management policies would be an allot better option to just keep looking for handouts.

[HunterDave]

HunterDave, you wrote the following: "I doubt it if you catch your 3 fish and go cook them up on the fire. But, if you have to catch and release 10 fish before catching one big legal to keep one then the potential for fish dying unnecessarily increases."

Please look at the previous studies you posted about hooking mortality. It talks about standard hooking (not gill or gut hooking) as having very low mortality rates. This is why a bait ban is in effect. Very few fish are hooked deep enough with non bait techniques, and as such there is very low mortality. For your situation of catching and releasing 10 fish before getting a keeper having a higher mortality rate than keeping the first three, you would need a mortality rate about 20% on the released fish. This simply is not going to happen when bait it not being used.

You are assuming that the mortality will come from the hook. The broader picture is that this is a family orientated tourist area that allot of kids will be catching them, dropping them on the ground, kicking them back into the lake, throwing them back in the lake, etc. Not to pick on kids, I can see adults mishandling them as well. Ya gotta think outside the box here. ;)

[fishpro]

Fishpro - IMO Fish conservation should not be dismissed based on the assumption that SRD is just going to keep putting more fish in anyway. I have read on this thread that 12" rainbow trout have been caught in L Kan Lake. This is despite the fact that it hasn't been stocked with rainbows since 2002. If what I have read is true, then the Rainbows have/are spawning.

I understand that fishing pressure in Alberta is very high and I accept that. However, if you protected larger spawning sized fish you would have a constant supply of smaller eater sized fish. Only a small percentage of the smaller stocked fish need to reach maturity to offset the mortality rate of the larger bigger fish.

This is not a novel idea and it is accepted worldwide.

IMO if anglers in this province truly want to improve the fishery then attitudes need to change. Handouts of stocked fish is not the answer except perhaps for pothole lakes with no possibility for spawning to occur. In the lakes that fish do have the environment to spawn, even if it is limited, then they should be given the chance to do so. I would suggest that efforts to create a better spawning habitat in those lakes, including Kan Lakes, along with appropriate fish management policies would be an allot better option to just keep looking for handouts.

Yes, I will completely agree that the rainbows are spawning. However, as was mentioned either earlier in this thread or in the other one, there is a very small amount of spawning occuring, as there simply is not a lot of suitable habitat for it and hence the lake would not be able to sustain a large population of rainbow trout or cutthroat trout no matter how strict the regulations were. This is the very reason that they are stocking these lakes. As far as I know there is no successful spawning by fish in the upper lake, hence the lake would be supported simply by stocking.

Additionally, a size restriction of 50cm will still protect some spawning fish where spawning can occur and allow the fish to spawn once or twice before being harvested. I agree with your postings that a larger fish will contribute more eggs, but you must consider natural mortality as fish age. In turn, although 1 large fish will produce more eggs than a medium sized fish, more eggs in total will come from the medium sized fish simply because there would be more of them.

Some lakes can maintain a very large population of fish through natural reproduction and therefore are not stocked. However, SRD has realized that Kananaskis Lakes cannot support a large population of cutthroat and/or rainbow trout, therefore have decided to continue stocking the lakes. The goal is not to develop a full self-sustaining population and I doubt that will ever be the goal. It will remain as a stocked fishery, and the proposed will be an effective way to maintain and improve it.

[fishpro]

You are assuming that the mortality will come from the hook. The broader picture is that this is a family orientated tourist area that allot of kids will be catching them, dropping them on the ground, kicking them back into the lake, throwing them back in the lake, etc. Not to pick on kids, I can see adults mishandling them as well. Ya gotta think outside the box here. ;)

Understandable point, and a realistic concern. If this proves to be the case there are things that could be done. People could bring this to the attention of SRD or Kananaskis Country and have signs posted to educate people. I'm sure there will be many people who are or will become very passionate about this fishery and will take steps to educate these people, likely by kindly approaching them and offering them a helping hand. Furthermore, some people and groups dedicated to improving our fisheries would potentially provide the cash and time to provide ways of educating these people. It has been done on other waterbodies in the province before, including one individual who paid for and posted many of the regulation signs along central Alberta streams.

At this point it is difficult to know the potential extent of this problem, but I believe that it would be worth it to go ahead with such a plan and then work around the odd hardship rather than avoiding the plan all together. Just my thought.

[HunterDave]

Yes, I will completely agree that the rainbows are spawning. However, as was mentioned either earlier in this thread or in the other one, there is a very small amount of spawning occuring, as there simply is not a lot of suitable habitat for it and hence the lake would not be able to sustain a large population of rainbow trout or cutthroat trout no matter how strict the regulations were. This is the very reason that they are stocking these lakes. As far as I know there is no successful spawning by fish in the upper lake, hence the lake would be supported simply by stocking.

Additionally, a size restriction of 50cm will still protect some spawning fish where spawning can occur and allow the fish to spawn once or twice before being harvested. I agree with your postings that a larger fish will contribute more eggs, but you must consider natural mortality as fish age. In turn, although 1 large fish will produce more eggs than a medium sized fish, more eggs in total will come from the medium sized fish simply because there would be more of them.

Some lakes can maintain a very large population of fish through natural reproduction and therefore are not stocked. However, SRD has realized that Kananaskis Lakes cannot support a large population of cutthroat and/or rainbow trout, therefore have decided to continue stocking the lakes. The goal is not to develop a full self-sustaining population and I doubt that will ever be the goal. It will remain as a stocked fishery, and the proposed will be an effective way to maintain and improve it.

Did I read this right? If so, how can the lake sustain a large population of even larger trout as proposed? :confused:

[fishpro]

Sorry, I don't understand this at all.

I'm saying that the Lower lake could not support a large population of rainbows and cutthroats without stocking. There are limited tributaries to the lake, and those that exist have very cold water and limited room for trout to spawn. Fish need appropriate habitat to spawn, and there simply isn't enough of it to sustain a large lake such as this. So even if we were to make the lake completely catch and release (completely hypothetical argument) and not stock it, not enough spawning could occur to maintain high numbers of trout. It would be even harder with harvest allowed. This is why we are not concerned so much with the spawning and natural reproduction, and also why SRD has designated this as a lake to stock on a regular basis.

I should note that I realize some spawning occurs and therefore some rainbow trout have still been caught, but overall the fish in the lake resulting from spawning are relatively few and far between.

I also am not sure about the bull trout spawning, as I know they have been much more successful. Perhaps this is because they are fall spawners, or they have found the one quality spawning stream and taken over it, or maybe this stream isn't suitable for other trout in the spring. No matter what it is, I realize that the lake is sustaining a healthy population of bull trout and my above argument does not apply to them.

[fishpro]

Did I read this right? If so, how can the lake sustain a large population of even larger trout as proposed? :confused:

Sorry, what I meant is that it could never support a large population simply through natural reproduction, but it can support large numbers of stocked fish. This is why these lakes will be continually stocked.

[HunterDave]

Well, it sounds like you might know more about this issue than other people that have been posting on this thread and there is finally something on here that I can digest.

With that I bid you a good night.:)

[GaryF]

Now that was a good read, this is still the only topic I have seen not become a personal ****ing match, but a really good debate. Kudos to everyone!! My top 10 list will be done up this afternoon.

[Don Andersen]

1] I understand Steelhead's pain. I've watched the elected officials of Alberta gut SRD time after time.
2] In the 55 years I've fished Alberta, I've caught 20" trout in most lakes. They weren't trophy or even quality, they were pan sized.
3] After experiencing SRD continuously screwing up the size of fish in our lakes, a Quality Lake Policy was developed in an attempt to kick start SRD back on track. To this point, the jury is still out. Beaver Lake has now been managed to a third of the size requirement for a Quality Lake. And yes there were studies after studies, netting after netting and creel census after creel census. Can SRD really manage a lake to provide fish over 20"? Still waiting for some evidence.

Enforcement is not about petitions, it's about getting off your butt and raising the money to get more enforcement in the field. Streamwatch programs exist because sportsman care. The Streamwatch program has nearly doubled the presence of enforcement people in the eastern slopes of Alberta.

Lakes the raise larger fish are few and widely scattered. At least one of them was completed w/o much effort by SRD other than meetings.


regards,


Don

[Sundancefisher]

Now that was a good read, this is still the only topic I have seen not become a personal ****ing match, but a really good debate. Kudos to everyone!! My top 10 list will be done up this afternoon.

I agree.

Fishpro...you should change your name to Debatepro. You showed better patience and penmanship than any of us to date in reiterating in a clear and concise manner the concerns you addressed. Good job.

In answer to your bull trout spawning habitat question...there is great habitat for bull trout to spawn in...though limited due to the length of the creek in question. While not exceptional it does provide enough for maintaining the population in the creek and lake. Bull trout require clean water with upwelling springs to control the temperature and the right sized gravel and stream velocity and depth. Some day I will give you a tour of some spawning bulls. They are awesome to watch.

Keep up the good work.

Sun

[GaryF]

I thought I would have a big list as to why this petition for regs changes is important, and I only came up with the one that matters most to me.

1. it will bring to light the desire of local anglers to have a quality fishery within a resonable driving distance of calgary. The following links are all to papers and studies done by SRD on quality fisheries. You will find the common theme of local angler interest in all of them. Without this petition presented, they will not know that there is a local interest to proceed with all of the studies mentioned in all of these reports and documents.

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/ManagingPrograms/FishWildlifeManagement/FisheriesManagement/documents/DRAFT-QualityFisheries-Jan-08.pdf

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishingHuntingTrapping/FishManagementZones/ZoneOne/documents/FisheriesManagementCycle-Jun2010.pdf

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishingHuntingTrapping/FishManagementZones/ZoneOne/documents/QualityStockedFisheries-Jun2010.pdf

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/ManagingPrograms/FishWildlifeManagement/FisheriesManagement/documents/QualityStockedFisheriesResults-Sep-08.pdf

I also attempted to locate the same quality fisheries reports for ES1, but suprisingly there are none, as there are no quality fisheries being managed in ES1 at this time.

[smitty9]

Just to jump back in:

Look, I see where Steelhead and HunterDave are coming from, in terms of a general point of this could be an experiment that goes wrong. Fair enough, but I'd like to see SRD and the angling community risk it.

However, some of my arguments have rested on the premise of the lakes being a big uptapped potential. I still see it that way.

But its clear that there are smarter people than me debating this, and/or clearly have more information (flawed or not). SO I have some questions:

1) Is there a significant probability that the lake levels could be restored/stabilized to increase the productivity of the littoral zone?

2) Would #1 involve alot of arm wrestling with Trans-Alta to help/cooperate? I thought the hydro-generation was slowly being phased out.

3) Yes, I recognize that the lakes' levels are artificially high. But so what? We've already messed with the system, why not optimize it for ecological and angling purposes, if the primary reason for the dams gets eliminated.

4) Could there be a way to improve spawning habitat for cutthroats and rainbows (bulls too, and I assume suckers are doing fine without our help). My experience has shown that, with some elbow grease, the quality of the habitat can be modified. But water temp? Is there anyway to make it more ideal? I am completely ignorant on that specific...

In my idealistic, rose-colored, naive world, I see 2 lakes that could be top AB fishing destinations if managed properly, but I am assuming alot here in terms of those lakes having the necessary raw ingredients to work with. I know that you can certainly make an attempt to have quality fishery without necessarily addressing those questions above, but, I thought I'd ask anyways.

I understand that its not exactly a fair or valid comparison, but as I see it, we need more quality fisheries that are as successful as Bullshead.

Angling is generally popular (despite the overall decrease in license sales), here in AB, flyfishing has been growing, I each year I see more pressure on more fragile watersheds like creeks and streams. Having more stillwater options, both quality and regular meat 'put and take' options, can only be a good thing, if for the single purpose it diverts more pressure to lakes.

And, as pointed out earlier with the SRD pdf's and stocking lists, the bait allowed, 5 fish per day fisheries VASTLY outnumber quality fisheries. I mean seriously, you only a need a couple of hands to count quality fisheries in this province, whereas the classic put and take trout lakes number in the dozens.

Anyways, if someone could shed some light on those questions, I'd be grateful.

Smitty

[Sundancefisher]

Just to jump back in:

Look, I see where Steelhead and HunterDave are coming from, in terms of a general point of this could be an experiment that goes wrong. Fair enough, but I'd like to see SRD and the angling community risk it.

However, some of my arguments have rested on the premise of the lakes being a big uptapped potential. I still see it that way.

But its clear that there are smarter people than me debating this, and/or clearly have more information (flawed or not). SO I have some questions:

1) Is there a significant probability that the lake levels could be restored/stabilized to increase the productivity of the littoral zone?

2) Would #1 involve alot of arm wrestling with Trans-Alta to help/cooperate? I thought the hydro-generation was slowly being phased out.

3) Yes, I recognize that the lakes' levels are artificially high. But so what? We've already messed with the system, why not optimize it for ecological and angling purposes, if the primary reason for the dams gets eliminated.

4) Could there be a way to improve spawning habitat for cutthroats and rainbows (bulls too, and I assume suckers are doing fine without our help). My experience has shown that, with some elbow grease, the quality of the habitat can be modified. But water temp? Is there anyway to make it more ideal? I am completely ignorant on that specific...

In my idealistic, rose-colored, naive world, I see 2 lakes that could be top AB fishing destinations if managed properly, but I am assuming alot here in terms of those lakes having the necessary raw ingredients to work with. I know that you can certainly make an attempt to have quality fishery without necessarily addressing those questions above, but, I thought I'd ask anyways.

I understand that its not exactly a fair or valid comparison, but as I see it, we need more quality fisheries that are as successful as Bullshead.

Angling is generally popular (despite the overall decrease in license sales), here in AB, flyfishing has been growing, I each year I see more pressure on more fragile watersheds like creeks and streams. Having more stillwater options, both quality and regular meat 'put and take' options, can only be a good thing, if for the single purpose it diverts more pressure to lakes.

And, as pointed out earlier with the SRD pdf's and stocking lists, the bait allowed, 5 fish per day fisheries VASTLY outnumber quality fisheries. I mean seriously, you only a need a couple of hands to count quality fisheries in this province, whereas the classic put and take trout lakes number in the dozens.

Anyways, if someone could shed some light on those questions, I'd be grateful.

Smitty

Point 1 etc.

From what I have heard 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.

Yes there is some negotiating involved. There is business and politics mixed in.

Point 4

There is a proposal in place to create an artificial spawning channel off of Rawson Creek for the Upper Lake. Not sure if one could be constructed off of Kent Creek trip of LKL or what the water temps are there. Smith Dorrien is too cold for spawning any significant numbers of Cutts. Few rainbows ever try.

Bolton is the best bet for cutts and bows spawning as evidenced by them spawning there. I have not done a spawning survey or habitat assessment there so I can't comment but maybe they can do some monifications to the creek to improve spawning success.

Sun

[Sundancefisher]

Smitty...

Another point to note that if the water level is stabilized in LKL, then it will be possible to enhance the old Kananaskis River channel for cutthroat trout spawning. This river channel, which is located just east of the Interlakes Campground, was the most important spawning area for the native cutthroat trout in LKL before UKL was dammed. If the water level in LKL is stabilized at a about 3 to 4 m below the full supply level, then there would be a couple of hundred metres of the old Kananaskis River channel downstream of the waterfall that could be enhanced for cutthroat trout spawning. If this happens, it would not only reduce the number of cutthroat trout that needed to be stocked in LKL, it would also provide a great viewing opportunity in the spring for campers in the Interlakes Campground to view large cutts spawning in this channel. Of course, this channel would need to be closed to protect the spawners.

[Sundancefisher]

As of right now.

98 people on HunterDave's poll...pretty much the biggest turnout on an AOF poll. It would great to get to 200...but 100 is a really good representative sampling.

273 signatures on the petition. I wonder how many signatures are on the petitions at the fishing shops? Anyone know? It is often hard for petitions to work at businesses as they don't have time to remind everyone about it. Still...I feel this is a solid number...but maybe F&W needs 300 - 500...?

Keep the names coming folks!

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

[HunterDave]

98 people on HunterDave's poll...pretty much the biggest turnout on an AOF poll.

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

I think that you should just stick to facts Sundance. :lol:

284 votes on the crossbow poll about 3 weeks ago comes immediately to mind. :)

[Sundancefisher]

LOL

I will clarify for you..

A great turn out for a AOF poll in the "fishing" section. I don't follow the hunting.

The last 10 polls in the fishing area was...

8
218
14
37
49
49
108
41
79
17

So your 103 in a short period of time is not bad. Still maybe a number of people just jumped straight to the petition and skipped the poll. Hopefully they keep signing. :test:

How goes your review of Fishpro's dialog with ya?

[HunterDave]

LOL

I will clarify for you..

A great turn out for a AOF poll in the "fishing" section. I don't follow the hunting.

The last 10 polls in the fishing area was...

8
218
14
37
49
49
108
41
79
17

So your 103 in a short period of time is not bad. Still maybe a number of people just jumped straight to the petition and skipped the poll. Hopefully they keep signing. :test:

How goes your review of Fishpro's dialog with ya?

Indeed, providing clear and factual information is always a good idea in order to gain and maintain your credibility. :)

I haven't reviewed Fishpro's dialogue with me. His points were presented in such a credible, respectful and intelligent manner that I don't feel the requirement to review it. :)

[Sundancefisher]

Indeed, providing clear and factual information is always a good idea in order to gain and maintain your credibility. :)

I haven't reviewed Fishpro's dialogue with me. His points were presented in such a credible, respectful and intelligent manner that I don't feel the requirement to review it. :)

We agree once again. He did an excellent job. I have deep respect for his prose.

So have you signed the petition yet. Please say no... If you said yes then it means you ignored everything I said and just had fun with me. If you say no...then all is right with the world still.:argue2:

[HunterDave]

So have you signed the petition yet. Please say no... If you said yes then it means you ignored everything I said and just had fun with me. If you say no...then all is right with the world still.:argue2:

No, I haven't signed the petition. :lol:

In fact, if I fished there all of the time I'd be starting my own petition to try to head this one off. Personally, I'd rather catch three harder to get 20" trout per day that you are currently allowed in Kan Lake rather than only one easy to catch one. I'm sure that everyone understood that when they signed the poll so they deserve what they get if this passes.

You guys down in Calgary can reduce your possession limits all that you want as long as you don't try to come up this way and do it. As soon as the weather warms up a bit a few of us are headed to Carson Lake to bring home our 5 trout limits and I'm pretty sure that some of them will be +20" if we want to keep them that big. It's nice to have that option. :lol:

[GaryF]

You guys down in Calgary can reduce your possession limits all that you want as long as you don't try to come up this way and do it. As soon as the weather warms up a bit a few of us are headed to Carson Lake to bring home our 5 trout limits and I'm pretty sure that some of them will be +20" if we want to keep them that big. It's nice to have that option. :lol:

So this is all about keeping what you catch after all then. Not studies that haven't been done, economical impacts and everything else that you were stating as main reasons for your diagreement with the petition. Keeping the limit high isn't even on your top 10 list, but your statement makes it your top priority. With enough time, everyone slips up and the truth comes out. Thanks tho, you helped us put tons of information out there.

[Sundancefisher]

No, I haven't signed the petition. :lol:

In fact, if I fished there all of the time I'd be starting my own petition to try to head this one off. Personally, I'd rather catch three harder to get 20" trout per day that you are currently allowed in Kan Lake rather than only one easy to catch one. I'm sure that everyone understood that when they signed the poll so they deserve what they get if this passes.

You guys down in Calgary can reduce your possession limits all that you want as long as you don't try to come up this way and do it. As soon as the weather warms up a bit a few of us are headed to Carson Lake to bring home our 5 trout limits and I'm pretty sure that some of them will be +20" if we want to keep them that big. It's nice to have that option. :lol:

That is a shame. So you are totally opposed to all quality fisheries. But you have not even fished one by the sounds of it.

[steelhead]

I would say its about stopping the SRD from just making more rules to have a reason not to spend a cent to do anything. Its a bad precedent to set. Rules dont keep people honest, enforcement does.

Then they move them trout rules over to manage walleyes and Pike cause it worked soooo well for a trout pond, well, its gotta work for the Pike and walleyes too. Keep all the spawners, great Idea. Works for stocked trout, but not for self sustaining walleye and pike populations. I guess ALL the other provinces and many many states got it wrong in thier management, and Alberta has been right all the time. Can ya imagine that!


Its also about very few individuals ideas of how fishing should be. Catch and release and bigger fish to fit thier ego's and picture frames. So much so that they dont consider anyone else when thinking this stuff up.

Theres not one person here thats made up a good definition of quality yet. Quality to who, evryone, or just the 300 that signed the petition. Not every angler goes to FLY shops and internet boards. How about a petition at the grocery store or fish and game accociations not affiliated with trout?

Sun and GaryF, people want to keep fish too. I know its hard to get it into your heads, but yes, people do like keeping fish, and not big mud trout, little panfries. Many of them want to go fishing to keep a few for the pan. Its legal and a part of life, living, growing up and a tool to get youngsters to respect the resource. If you make rules to prevent take, then the poachers are the only ones who win, and with no enforcement, they win all the time. Theres still bait containers found and cut up small fish and entrails found in bullshead, muir, and beaver once in a while. I guess all those eyes you talked about being out there didnt help at all.


But its all about your ideals, your thoughts on how it should be done, your reasoning is right, your quest for quality. And from many of your responses, you have no desire or want to look at the broader picture. There is a broader picture, but its wrong in your eyes.


And GarryF, we asked for your top 10 list, not the SRD's top 4 list of links. I'd rather see your humble opinions on why, just like the rest of us did. So yah, do like we did, and make a list that we can cut up with lame opinionated, and words in our mouth responses like the ones that you and Sun have graced our pages with. Or are ya yeller? Not prepared to look stupid like you made the rest of us out to be?


HunterDave and I put forward very real concerns and ones backed by conservation strategies put in place for 15 years and in some cases, decades. But i guess thier not correct now. Not in the light of a quality fishery boom. How interesting how staunch opinions of the past have changed to open the doors of one small sectors ideals to change the future. I have seen every post on the fly anglers boards, I see what you guys want, i see what you guys complain about, I see what you guys see fishing should be like. I see what people on this board want and what fishing should be like. 2 very different perspectives, but who is right, really? I see you guys call this board the redneck board!!LOL Have you lowered yourselves to be here? I bet you think you have.


Calling out and shrugging off real concerns of other sectors of angling like your the only ones that are right, and everyone else is wrong, well, I guess we get what we have for fisheries today. More complaints than quality reports.


I do not agree with this quality fishery on these 2 lakes. A single specie pond, like beaver and bullshead closer to Calgary, yes, but not a self-sustaining system that is already quality. I guess a 25" plus bull isnt quality but a 20 inch cutt is. I guess all the foothills and high mountain streams that surround these lakes arent quality either as you see a need for these quality lakes deep within them. According to you fellas.


STEELHEAD

[Don Andersen]

No, I haven't signed the petition. :lol:


You guys down in Calgary can reduce your possession limits all that you want as long as you don't try to come up this way and do it. As soon as the weather warms up a bit a few of us are headed to Carson Lake to bring home our 5 trout limits and I'm pretty sure that some of them will be +20" if we want to keep them that big. It's nice to have that option. :lol:


Hey Hunter...

You must have been pleased as all get out with the Regional Bio. responsible for taking Carson from 14 lbs. > 14". Thank God he retired to be - - - are your ready for this - - - - President of the Alberta Fish and Game Assoc. And at one Roundtable Meeting Proposed making all trout lakes into Perch Lakes.

I've watch SRD destroy lake after lake by poor management practices. It has taken no studies of any kind to reduce the ability of nearly all the trout lakes in this Province to produce any fish over 14".

Don

[Sundancefisher]

I would say its about stopping the SRD from just making more rules to have a reason not to spend a cent to do anything. Its a bad precedent to set. Rules dont keep people honest, enforcement does.

Then they move them trout rules over to manage walleyes and Pike cause it worked soooo well for a trout pond, well, its gotta work for the Pike and walleyes too. Keep all the spawners, great Idea. Works for stocked trout, but not for self sustaining walleye and pike populations. I guess ALL the other provinces and many many states got it wrong in thier management, and Alberta has been right all the time. Can ya imagine that!


Its also about very few individuals ideas of how fishing should be. Catch and release and bigger fish to fit thier ego's and picture frames. So much so that they dont consider anyone else when thinking this stuff up.

Theres not one person here thats made up a good definition of quality yet. Quality to who, evryone, or just the 300 that signed the petition. Not every angler goes to FLY shops and internet boards. How about a petition at the grocery store or fish and game accociations not affiliated with trout?

Sun and GaryF, people want to keep fish too. I know its hard to get it into your heads, but yes, people do like keeping fish, and not big mud trout, little panfries. Many of them want to go fishing to keep a few for the pan. Its legal and a part of life, living, growing up and a tool to get youngsters to respect the resource. If you make rules to prevent take, then the poachers are the only ones who win, and with no enforcement, they win all the time. Theres still bait containers found and cut up small fish and entrails found in bullshead, muir, and beaver once in a while. I guess all those eyes you talked about being out there didnt help at all.


But its all about your ideals, your thoughts on how it should be done, your reasoning is right, your quest for quality. And from many of your responses, you have no desire or want to look at the broader picture. There is a broader picture, but its wrong in your eyes.


And GarryF, we asked for your top 10 list, not the SRD's top 4 list of links. I'd rather see your humble opinions on why, just like the rest of us did. So yah, do like we did, and make a list that we can cut up with lame opinionated, and words in our mouth responses like the ones that you and Sun have graced our pages with. Or are ya yeller? Not prepared to look stupid like you made the rest of us out to be?


HunterDave and I put forward very real concerns and ones backed by conservation strategies put in place for 15 years and in some cases, decades. But i guess thier not correct now. Not in the light of a quality fishery boom. How interesting how staunch opinions of the past have changed to open the doors of one small sectors ideals to change the future. I have seen every post on the fly anglers boards, I see what you guys want, i see what you guys complain about, I see what you guys see fishing should be like. I see what people on this board want and what fishing should be like. 2 very different perspectives, but who is right, really? I see you guys call this board the redneck board!!LOL Have you lowered yourselves to be here? I bet you think you have.


Calling out and shrugging off real concerns of other sectors of angling like your the only ones that are right, and everyone else is wrong, well, I guess we get what we have for fisheries today. More complaints than quality reports.


I do not agree with this quality fishery on these 2 lakes. A single specie pond, like beaver and bullshead closer to Calgary, yes, but not a self-sustaining system that is already quality. I guess a 25" plus bull isnt quality but a 20 inch cutt is. I guess all the foothills and high mountain streams that surround these lakes arent quality either as you see a need for these quality lakes deep within them. According to you fellas.


STEELHEAD


You are very bitter and I feel for you. I am researching the Fisheries budget information for the past 10 years. When I can piece it all together I will report. I want to know how many anglers we have a year for the past 10 years. I want to know what the fisheries budget is for the past 10 years. I also want to know what the fishing license revenue has been for the past 10 years. I also want to know how many officers we have per 100,000 hectares and compare to BC. I also want to know what the budget breakdown is in Alberta.

We know that BC stocks tons more lakes 900 to our 242 stocked and has about 4-5 times the licensing revenue. We also know we stock 20,000,000 fish a year in Alberta compared to only 8,000,000 in BC.

You keep throwing out this major assumption of I hate government...but...your points have not been backed up with any facts. Hopefully my contacts can provide what I am looking for. Should be numbers that are tracked yearly I would hope.

Your attempts to scare people into thinking put and take trout pond rules will somehow influence pike and walleye regulations is...how shall I put it nicely...bizarre. Funny how the plan is to only make a few of these lakes regionally to fill the demand. Stretching this future as you try is misplaced paranoia.

You say that nobody wants the new regulations we are selling but save a few and yet...wow...there are significant numbers buying it up when they put these regulations on a lake. You complain yet to me...complaining without context of knowing what you are complaining about (as in having experienced it) is very weak debating.

Your concerns center around maintaining high stocking rates, small fishing and plenty of space in your freezer while excluding all other users from having any say or any fishery that being fair works for everyone and not just your own ideals.

Your "fisheries strategies" are always out of context to this issue and yet you fail to acknowledge or recognize it. For instance...demanding the release of larger spawning sized trout makes no sense in a fishery that is put and take and any poor spawning success is just a novelty rather than a management strategy point.

And last but not least...funny how you tell us that people want to keep fish...excluding the fact that 95% of all put and take fisheries will remain 12 inch or smaller fisheries...ignoring everyone that wants something better...and forgetting that this new regulation allows for increase harvest by weight of fish while increasing and improving catch rates for everyone in the process. What you fail to do Sirs...is actually read what is being said. Keeping an open mind is what real debating is all about.

Cheers

Sun

[steelhead]

Sun,



Quit putting words into peoples mouths. No more"so what your saying" and " your attempts" stuff. You have been doing it quite a bit, and thats poor debating. It not reading what people have said and your making your own decisions of what you think we said. One reason why fishpro has credibility. He doesnt assume. He recognizes the point, and adresses it accordingly. And he doesnt use lines that put a false emotion and words into the poster hes relpying to.

I'm not bitter. Not at all. If i was bitter, I would have been banned 6 pages ago. I just dont like this proposal for these peticular lakes.



Read this carefully SUN,

I'm definetly not here to scare people, I dont hate the government, I am a catch and release angler, my concerns do not center around high stocking rates, I am pro quality lakes (just not these 2) and what I do not do is not read whats being said! I have been saying this since the beginning, BUT, you have flipped it to make me out to be a bad person by , well...... as you put it....

"What you fail to do Sirs...is actually read what is being said. Keeping an open mind is what real debating is all about."


I think you are the one that best fits that description. And a few here have already agreed in past posts.


And then you say I dont know what these quality fisheries are like!! Ha ha,

I have fished Bullshead 12 times last year, Upper and lower k 5 times, many trout streams from north to south about 25 times, I even fished beaver and Muir twice each. I am a REGULAR USER OF QUALITY FISHERIES already.

Sun said what he thinks I know.....


"complaining without context of knowing what you are complaining about (as in having experienced it) is very weak debating"


Lets hear your experience with quality lakes. Where else and how many times have you fished the quality lakes and streams of this province.


For a person that is gunning for more quality lakes, how much have you used the ones we have already? How much have you experienced it? By reading your posts and reports for the last year (allthough quite nauseating) I already know the answer to my queries.


STEELHEAD



Don Theres not a person in the AFGA that does anything helpfull for our fisheries as a whole. They should Take the F out of thier title. Theres also not many people in the SRD I have any confidence in protecting our waters, such as the one that moved on that you mention.

I guess thats what we get for our dollar. Poor employees and pee poor enforcement.



I'm glad Sun quit as a Bio. He has a tough time reading and comprehending simple stuff, the tough stuff must be overwhealming at times.

[Sundancefisher]

[QUOTE=steelhead;798098]Sun,



Quit putting words into peoples mouths. No more"so what your saying" and " your attempts" stuff. You have been doing it quite a bit, and thats poor debating. It not reading what people have said and your making your own decisions of what you think we said. One reason why fishpro has credibility. He doesnt assume. He recognizes the point, and adresses it accordingly. And he doesnt use lines that put a false emotion and words into the poster hes relpying to.

I'm not bitter. Not at all. If i was bitter, I would have been banned 6 pages ago. I just dont like this proposal for these peticular lakes.



Read this carefully SUN,

I'm definetly not here to scare people, I dont hate the government, (QUOTE]

Maybe it is just the impression you are giving people. You seem very caught up on the whole poaching is destroying the fishery...not over fishing. Also the comments over money being depleted from the system.

So far you have posted...18 times...complained about government funding in 10 and enforcement in 6 as principle reasons for not liking the proposed regulations. I have asked repeatedly for back up to your assumptions and seen nothing.

I have been fishing for a long time as apparently you yourself has. I see you at least find quality fisheries beneficial. I must of mixed you up with HunterDave for not fishing Bullshead before...sorry about that.

You comment about UKL and LKL being in the heartland of trout country and not needing any special regulations...but many people don't feel 12 inch trout should define the heartland of trout country. They are just asking for something a little bit more...in just a few easily accessible lakes scattered around each region of the province.

What is the problem with that concept...and allowing F&W to review that?

[Sundancefisher]

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

[#249]

Steelhead,
Just a few comments/questions regarding one of your previous posts
Top 10 reasons why its a bad idea.


1. Protected specie in lake (bulls). Possible miss-identification of species causing harm to protected fish.

Contrary to your assertion, the proposed regulation changes — increasing the minimum size limit to 50 cm and reducing the bag limit for cutthroat/rainbow trout — would actually reduce the potential for anglers, who are “uneducated” in fish identification, to mistakenly harvest bull due to misidentification. This is because “uneducated” anglers, who abided by the new size limit and bag limit, would no longer have the potential to mistakenly harvest bull trout in the 30-50 cm size range. They would also have less potential to mistakenly harvest larger (>50 cm) bull trout, given that the bag limit for cutthroat/rainbow trout would be 1 fish (versus the current 3-fish bag limit).

If you were really concerned about protecting bull trout, then you would be in support for the proposed regulations. In fact, you would probably be in favour of total C&R regulations for all trout in both lakes, since this would prevent any harvest of bull trout due to misidentification.

3. This lake has show to already be a quality fishery. Bulls can be caught with great regularity and well over the Quality size.

Yes, they are already quality fisheries for bulls. However, the intent of the proposed regulations — increasing the minimum size limit to 50 cm and reducing the bag limit for cutthroat/rainbow trout — is to also create quality fisheries for cutthroat/rainbow trout.

5. Depths of species in summer months are generally too deep for shore anglers to have advertized higher catch rates. Thats the nature of those 2 species.

If this were the case, then why was the catch rate for cutthroat trout in the surface-set nets in UKL higher than for the mid-column or bottom sets in 2007, considering that the netting was done in the summer? Furthermore, the catch rate for bull trout in the surface-set nets was also surprisingly high for a species that some claim can only be caught in deep water.

[HunterDave]

So this is all about keeping what you catch after all then. Not studies that haven't been done, economical impacts and everything else that you were stating as main reasons for your diagreement with the petition. Keeping the limit high isn't even on your top 10 list, but your statement makes it your top priority. With enough time, everyone slips up and the truth comes out. Thanks tho, you helped us put tons of information out there.

I've already listed my reasons why I would not support this proposal and after reviewing it I believe that my main concern was that absolutely no studies have been done on anything. When people start messing with the environment without any studies as to the possible repercussions bad things can happen. I think that a good example is of do-gooders dumping a bunch of perch into a trout pond which I'm sure Sundance can relate to.

Actually, keeping the limit high IS in my top ten list as point #7. Just because I didn't spell it out for you doesn't mean that it wasn't there. No slip up there.

You're welcomed. It appeared to me that you guys needed all of the help that you could get.

[HunterDave]

That is a shame. So you are totally opposed to all quality fisheries. But you have not even fished one by the sounds of it.

That depends on what you consider a quality fishery. If making it easier to catch and keep one 20" trout instead of being able to catch and keep three harder to catch 20" is considered a quality fishery then yeah, I guess that I am opposed to it.

No, I have never fished in any body of water in Alberta that is officially classed as a quality fishery. Nor have I jabbed a sharp pencil in my eye but even thou I haven't experienced it, I bet that it would hurt. I have though fished lakes that I personally consider quality fisheries although not officially called such.

If there were two bodies of water each 150kms from my home and both held +20" trout, which lake do you think that I'm going to drive to?

A. A quality fishery lake with easier to catch large trout with a minimum size limited to +20" and a possession limit of one; or

B. A lake with harder to catch larger trout with a minimum size limited to 12" and a possession limit of three.

I'll give you a hint........it's not "A" ;)

In lake "B" I have the option of keeping three +20" if I want to. I also have the option of keeping three trout between 12" and 20" if I want something to cook up for myself for supper when I get home. I'm also the type that doesn't mind a challenge when it comes to catching fish and I realize that not everyone is like that. :)

It's all about options. This proposal will take the options away from anglers and limit them to one thing. If anyone that signs the petition doesn't understand that before signing it then too bad for them. :confused0024:

[Sundancefisher]

In lake "B" I have the option of keeping three +20" if I want to. I also have the option of keeping three trout between 12" and 20" if I want something to cook up for myself for supper when I get home. I'm also the type that doesn't mind a challenge when it comes to catching fish and I realize that not everyone is like that. :)

It's all about options. This proposal will take the options away from anglers and limit them to one thing. If anyone that signs the petition doesn't understand that before signing it then too bad for them. :confused0024:

Funny...these mystery lakes that really really great and skilled fishermen like yoursefl know about and can readily catch these 20 inch rainbows whenever they feel like really makes the rest of us anglers jealous. It is good to know they are so readily accessible and catchable. So now where are these mystery lakes?

Oh wait...

1) you won't tell us cause the over fishing will destroy this mystery fishery.

2) you will tell us another lake and hope no one calls you on it.

Fact is...you start a poll that asks are there lots of opportunity to catch lots of bigger cutthroat and rainbow trout in Alberta...you know the resounding answer would be no. It is a dream except where there is a quality fishery. Still...I bet after a quality fishery gets established...all other put and take lakes experience a sharp drop in usage. Why fish for minnows when you can catch something way more fun. Still you bad mouth what you know nothing about.

As for perch...somethings are clearly common sense.

Is it wrong to put perch in a put and take trout lake...yes...obviously...horribly bad.

Is it wrong to stock the lake with larger trout or let the trout grow bigger and have higher catch rates...terrible...just terrible...NOT...:snapoutofit:

[ADIDAFish]

Sun, HunterDave just wants it to be harder to catch fish there. To each his own but I think there are lots of other bodies of water where it is hard to catch fish. Why not try Ghost Lake for some lake trout?

I'm still surprised that 21 people voted no to this proposed change. I didn't think so many people enjoyed having a smaller chance of catching smaller fish.

[HunterDave]

Funny...these mystery lakes that really really great and skilled fishermen like yoursefl know about and can readily catch these 20 inch rainbows whenever they feel like really makes the rest of us anglers jealous. It is good to know they are so readily accessible and catchable. So now where are these mystery lakes?

Oh wait...

1) you won't tell us cause the over fishing will destroy this mystery fishery.

2) you will tell us another lake and hope no one calls you on it.

Fact is...you start a poll that asks are there lots of opportunity to catch lots of bigger cutthroat and rainbow trout in Alberta...you know the resounding answer would be no. It is a dream except where there is a quality fishery. Still...I bet after a quality fishery gets established...all other put and take lakes experience a sharp drop in usage. Why fish for minnows when you can catch something way more fun. Still you bad mouth what you know nothing about.

As for perch...somethings are clearly common sense.

Is it wrong to put perch in a put and take trout lake...yes...obviously...horribly bad.

Is it wrong to stock the lake with larger trout or let the trout grow bigger and have higher catch rates...terrible...just terrible...NOT...:snapoutofit:

Nothing of substance. Perhaps you should take Fishpro's example and apply it to your posts.

[HunterDave]

Sun, HunterDave just wants it to be harder to catch fish there. To each his own but I think there are lots of other bodies of water where it is hard to catch fish. Why not try Ghost Lake for some lake trout?

I'm still surprised that 21 people voted no to this proposed change. I didn't think so many people enjoyed having a smaller chance of catching smaller fish.

How is not adopting this proposal making it harder to catch fish? Adopting makes it easier to catch larger fish but not adopting it doesn't make it any harder to catch fish. That makes no sense to me.

I'm actually surprised that there aren't allot more people voting no. You'd think that people wouldn't welcome more restrictions. Maybe the other 20 no votes come from people that are already catching 20" trout out of Kan Lakes?

I honestly don't know what "having a smaller chance of catching smaller fish." means?

[Sundancefisher]

I'm actually surprised that there aren't allot more people voting no. You'd think that people wouldn't welcome more restrictions. Maybe the other 20 no votes come from people that are already catching 20" trout out of Kan Lakes?


You are surprised the majority want to catch bigger fish? 70-80% of those who care feel this is a positive step to have a readily accessible, high quality fishery, with higher catch rates and larger fish. The split on your poll is similar to the F&W survey.

You are talking about the same basic regulations but instead of 12 inch limit it is increased to 20 inch. Because the fish are significantly larger...1 fish is worth at worst the same...and more than likely more than the previous 3 fish combine.

The lake currently has both size restrictions and length restrictions. No "additional" regulations are being applied.


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

277 signatures

[fishpro]

I can tell from this thread that there are many people who are either strongly for or against this petition. I do realize that there are many issues on both sides of the argument and there has been a lot of back and forth arguing where people on both sides don't fully see what the other is saying. There are many concerns regarding this topic throughout this thread, but if anyone would like to compile their concerns again I would be happy to discuss them. Please feel free to make another post mentioning your main concerns and I will try my best to address them.

[HunterDave]

My Top Ten Reasons Why I do NOT support This Proposal:

1. I refuse to endorse anything that isn't well thought out and studied.
2. There has been nothing substantial presented by anyone endorsing this proposal that indicates to me that it is a good idea.
3. There has been no study of the lake to determine what the ramifications would be of having more large fish in it.
4. There has been no study done on the economic impact such a proposal would have on the tourist industry and local businesses in the Kan Lakes area.
5. No one has been consulted in the Kan Lakes area to get a clear indication of what the users of the area would want.
6. SRD has not been contacted to confirm whether or not there's a legitimate reason for the current regs to be in place as they are.
7. Possession rates will be slashed 66%.
8. Mortality rates of easy to catch smaller fish could potentially increase due to fish trauma associated with catch and release requirements.
9. It is a poor lesson in conservation to teach young anglers to keep large spawning sized fish and not smaller eating sized ones.
10.IMHO this point isn't required so I'll just throw it away...........plus I'm lazy. :lol:

Here ya go Fishpro.

[fishpro]

My Top Ten Reasons Why I do NOT support This Proposal:

1. I refuse to endorse anything that isn't well thought out and studied.
2. There has been nothing substantial presented by anyone endorsing this proposal that indicates to me that it is a good idea.
3. There has been no study of the lake to determine what the ramifications would be of having more large fish in it.
4. There has been no study done on the economic impact such a proposal would have on the tourist industry and local businesses in the Kan Lakes area.
5. No one has been consulted in the Kan Lakes area to get a clear indication of what the users of the area would want.
6. SRD has not been contacted to confirm whether or not there's a legitimate reason for the current regs to be in place as they are.
7. Possession rates will be slashed 66%.
8. Mortality rates of easy to catch smaller fish could potentially increase due to fish trauma associated with catch and release requirements.
9. It is a poor lesson in conservation to teach young anglers to keep large spawning sized fish and not smaller eating sized ones.
10.IMHO this point isn't required so I'll just throw it away...........plus I'm lazy.

Before I get to addressing the specific points, here is a list referring to the original post about the petition. I am not sure if it will help at all, or if you may have already seen it. http://outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=77783

1. I completely respect your view on that. I may be incorrect, but I believe that a petition showing angler interest in this would lead to further studies being done. If a few people believe that this could improve the fishery and present it at a round table meeting, then perhaps SRD would look further into the lakes and their potential. If studies were to show that these lakes were unsuitable, then they would probably research other possible lakes due to angler support for such fisheries. I believe that by signing such this petition you are supporting more than just a regulation change on 2 lakes, but also showing the government that there is a significant number of fishermen who are passionate about having fisheries like proposed. It could also lead to more money given to other future studies as fishermen see that the government will actually listen to them.

2. I don't know exactly what you are looking for, but the reason I am in support of this is simply to create another fishery with large numbers of quality fish.

3. and 4. are the same as number 1. Additionally, I do realize that Bullshead isn't an identical situation, but the past management at Bullshead has shown that SRD does take these lakes seriously. If there were too many larger fish (ie. too much biomass at the level of the food chain that trout occupy), it would be apparent within a few years as growth rates noticably change. If this was to occur, as it did at Bullshead, fishermen would get involved and discuss stocking rates with SRD and have them reduced if necessary. I expect that if this was to go through then there would be a group of anglers that become very involved in this fishery.

5. It would likely be a good idea to consult people in the area. Unfortunately that has not happened yet, and now that it is winter there will be relatively few people in the area. For the time being I believe it is beneficial to survey here for a general opinion, as well as reach some users of Kananaskis Lakes that frequent the forum, then next summer people could be consulted in Kananaskis.

6. As noted in the link I posted above, the first round of this petition was discussed as the SRD Round Table meeting recently. If there was a reason for the regs to be in place exactly how they are I believe that would be something that would be mentioned.

7. I completely understand your point. I have been to the lakes but haven't fished them much, but from my understanding most of the fish are under or just marginally over the 30cm limit. I have seen numberous lakes of fish of various species where this type of situation exists, especially where there is significant fishing pressure. Assuming this trend continues with an increased size limit to 50cm, we could likely expect numerous fish up to 50cm with a few over. The fish now being stocked are cutthroats, which usually remain gullible and easy to catch even as they grow large, so I don't feel we need to worry about a fish just over the 50cm limit being that much harder to catch than a fish just over a 30cm limit. Now, since a fish's weight will grow approximately proportional to the cube of the change in the fish's length, a 55cm trout will have more meat on it than 3 35cm trout. In this case, while the posession limits will be reduced by 66% in terms of numbers of fish, the amount of fish by weight will stay the same or even increase under the proposed regulations.

8. This is definitely possible. I know I made a post earlier in this thread mentioning that there will be people wanting to help the lakes. They would likely do things such as: politely helping people out with fish handling techniques, lobbying SRD and/or Kananaskis Country to install signs on fish handling, or even raising money themselves for these signs. Recent history has shown that passionate fishermen in Alberta can collectively raise thousands of dollars towards a cause they believe in. While this will not completely eliminate mortality, I believe it will keep it to a very reasonable minimum.

9. I see where you are coming from, but I don't see that as being a huge deal here simply because they are stocked lakes and that would not be the purpose of these lakes. Yes, it is an important lessons to teach young anglers, but I believe that since there are so many places to teach such a thing that we don't need to worry about having one fewer.


One question I do have for you though. Are you opposed to the idea of such regulations being implemented anywhere with the intention of creating higher quality fisheries (by some people's standards), or are you more of the opinion that this case simply needs more research before being valid to seriously consider?

[ADIDAFish]

How is not adopting this proposal making it harder to catch fish? Adopting makes it easier to catch larger fish but not adopting it doesn't make it any harder to catch fish. That makes no sense to me.

I'm actually surprised that there aren't allot more people voting no. You'd think that people wouldn't welcome more restrictions. Maybe the other 20 no votes come from people that are already catching 20" trout out of Kan Lakes?

I honestly don't know what "having a smaller chance of catching smaller fish." means?

Not adopting this proposal does mean the catch rates will be lower than if the proposal was accepted.

If the proposal was accepted, the small fish won't be getting fished out. There will be tons of little fish that will have to be released until they get bigger, meaning it would be much easier to catch fish.

"a smaller chance of catching smaller fish" doesn't make too much sense I'll admit, what I meant was if the proposal doesn't go through then the chance of catching fish will be lower and the size of the fish will be smaller. Would you agree with that?

[hunter49]

Wow, this thread has gone over the top.

Sundancefisher why dont you try and do something useful for the lakes such as getting rid of the powerplant which in turn would stabilize the water level in the lakes. Not much of a "trophy" fishery if the food isnt there.

[GaryF]

I don't believe that there is anything left that could be said to sway HD or Steelhead. HD is against lowering catch rates, no matter what you put in front of him, he will never say yes to lowering the limit of harvest. Steelhead has posted before of his dislike of picking these 2 lakes as he likes them the way they are. He does not want them to become like the Bow because that will increase traffic and visitors and will take away what solitude he gets now from the lakes.

I understand their points fully, don't agree with them, but do understand them. With so few managed fisheries in the province, having a group of anglers petition for them is the first step, I've said this all along, and its the only point I have on my top 10 list. Are these the right lakes? Don't know until the studies get done, but they won't get started unless interest is shown. If the studies come back saying these lakes are bad, but this lake is good, then I will back that lake 100%. The stocking program is for everyone in alberta, and some of us would like to turn some of them into more than just a rotating door. Asking for 1% of all those bodies of water to me is not being unreasonable. That would be 29 lakes spread throughout the province out of the 293 that are stocked. To me that is completely doable and would not impact the general public the way some ppl make it out to be.

[HunterDave]

One question I do have for you though. Are you opposed to the idea of such regulations being implemented anywhere with the intention of creating higher quality fisheries (by some people's standards), or are you more of the opinion that this case simply needs more research before being valid to seriously consider?

The short answer is no, as long as you fellas keep it south of Red Deer and don't try to bring it up north. :lol:

Generally speeking, I'm not against quality fisheries as described on this thread as being a +20" trout with a reduction down to a possession limit of only one trout under some conditions:

The first being that the proposed body of water should be a new initiative (or an old one that's not working) and not one that is already producing fish that are so called quality sized +20" fish;

The second condition would be that the body of water selected would need to be in an appropriate geographical location; and,

The third would be that it would have to be in the common interests of all users of the body of water and not just a small number of vocal people.

To answer the second part of your question, yes, I could never consider endorsing anything without knowing what I was endorsing. IMO this proposal has not been researched at all and nothing has been posted on this thread to indicated otherwise.

How can anyone vote for this proposal, let alone endorse it, without knowing any facts? Right now people are signing a petition in support of the proposed regulation changes without even knowing if this lake can grow the trout to +20 in four years. It doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Regardless, I don't know allot about the fisheries in the Calgary region so I have to assume from what I've read that we have significantly more fishing opportunities in the area north of Edmonton. There are non-quality fishery lakes that have +20" trout in them and we have the option of keeping five 12" ones or five +20" ones. I don't think that anyone up here would want to change that but to each their own.

[HunterDave]

Not adopting this proposal does mean the catch rates will be lower than if the proposal was accepted.

If the proposal was accepted, the small fish won't be getting fished out. There will be tons of little fish that will have to be released until they get bigger, meaning it would be much easier to catch fish.

"a smaller chance of catching smaller fish" doesn't make too much sense I'll admit, what I meant was if the proposal doesn't go through then the chance of catching fish will be lower and the size of the fish will be smaller. Would you agree with that?

FINALLY! "It would be easier to catch fish" EXACTLY! When did easy to catch fish come into vogue? Maybe we should put enough restrictions on the Kan Lakes that eventually you could walk down to the lake and just dip a net in there and catch a dozen or so.

BTW the lake doesn't get fished out. If you believe that then I'm your Irish Uncle Jimmy.

[HunterDave]

I don't believe that there is anything left that could be said to sway HD or Steelhead. HD is against lowering catch rates, no matter what you put in front of him, he will never say yes to lowering the limit of harvest. Steelhead has posted before of his dislike of picking these 2 lakes as he likes them the way they are. He does not want them to become like the Bow because that will increase traffic and visitors and will take away what solitude he gets now from the lakes.

I understand their points fully, don't agree with them, but do understand them. With so few managed fisheries in the province, having a group of anglers petition for them is the first step, I've said this all along, and its the only point I have on my top 10 list. Are these the right lakes? Don't know until the studies get done, but they won't get started unless interest is shown. If the studies come back saying these lakes are bad, but this lake is good, then I will back that lake 100%. The stocking program is for everyone in alberta, and some of us would like to turn some of them into more than just a rotating door. Asking for 1% of all those bodies of water to me is not being unreasonable. That would be 29 lakes spread throughout the province out of the 293 that are stocked. To me that is completely doable and would not impact the general public the way some ppl make it out to be.

Well put. There's more than just the issue of reducing possession limits though (you said catch rates but I knew what you meant). ALLOT more is at stake with changing the fishing regs for Kan Lakes. I've mentioned them too many times to mention them again.

If the majority want easier to catch fish down that way then I say go for it.

[Freedom55]

"If your want anyone to take anything that you write seriously then provide supporting information to back it up. Just because you say something is a fact doesn't make it so...
'... Although I admire and respect your determination in lobbying for this proposal, without studying the social, economic and environmental impacts of it first, how can anyone support it? Has anyone even contacted SRD to determine what the impact would be of having more larger fish in the lakes? Or, why the current regulation is in place to allow people to catch "eater" sized fish? How would this newly proposed regulation effect tourism and the local economy? There is a ton of more information that you need in order to be taken seriously. I'm sorry, but IMHO right now it just sounds like a few good 'ol boys got together on a Friday night over a few wobbly pops and came up with a plan to help them catch bigger fish."


Mr Sundance Lake resident:
Out of a network of some 20,000 participants in this forum, and you've managed to include them all by posting in the General Discussion section, you have only stirred the imagination in 50 or so. Added to that is the other 60ish members (perhaps a few from another fishing forum you recently joined for this express reason) who participated in this poll. You have browbeaten everyone who has presented a better argument than you and your adopted cause, a proposal by some long gone poster; a cause that you hadn't thought of until these two guys fired your emotions. Previous to this you had perch on the brain and salmon from the north coast in your heart.
You have accused members of being anarchists, or bitter, or not worthy to debate with. Your condescending remarks have driven some of these people to frenzy, and caused others to vow their undying love.
I'm betting that ROTFLMOA is an acronym for a slur or other offensive remark.
You talk out of both sides of your mouth.
You provoked your neighbor into doing a reprehensible deed, then you thought you could weasle out of it with your "2 names" post. jeeez
From your first word on the subject, before even you had given it much thought, you had people who had given it no thought at all signing a petition that in fact, (don't YOU just love that word?) should not have been started until it had been well and truly discussed by the stakeholders.
You got your 277 signatures, if they can be called that, so give it a rest. Because I have noticed that I am somewhat of a threadkiller, I'm hoping that my mojo will work on this topic. And good riddance. We're flogging a dead horse, in my opinion.
Sorry to derail your thread, HunterDave. It is you that I admire and respect for your tenacity with this guy, not him. Your words, and those of several others, including steelhead, definitely convinced a lot of people to avoid this whole nasty business.
Kevin: if you didn't like the elastic band remark, try this one.
"Put an egg in your shoe and beat it!"

[Bigtoad]

Well, I'll start with HunterDave, just to comment on his quote:
"The third would be that it would have to be in the common interests of all users of the body of water and not just a small number of vocal people."

By looking at the results of this poll as well as the results of the government poll on quality fisheries, I think you'll find that it's actually you that are in the "small number of vocal people." I believe the majority of people do want more quality fisheries. Even the lakes designated as "quality" while still allowing large fish to be kept (like Beaver) fall short of the quality distinction IMHO.

For those people against changing regs, not only in Kananaskis but also in designating many more lakes as quality fisheries, have a look at this video of the Manitoba Parkland. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, at least watch the part at 16:40 where the biologist talks about what their plan was for creating such a great fishery.

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/educational/watch/v6451838pz8TAfcK

If anyone can watch this and not be totally convinced that quality fisheries are the way to go (while still keeping put-and-take lakes for Chubbdarter and others who like their grocery bills to be subsidized not by food-stamps but by stocking rates) then you had better check yourself into emergency and get the tumor that is pushing up against your cerebellum removed before you lose bladder control as well as your common sense.

Cheers.

[chubbdarter]

Well, I'll start with HunterDave, just to comment on his quote:
"The third would be that it would have to be in the common interests of all users of the body of water and not just a small number of vocal people."

By looking at the results of this poll as well as the results of the government poll on quality fisheries, I think you'll find that it's actually you that are in the "small number of vocal people." I believe the majority of people do want more quality fisheries. Even the lakes designated as "quality" while still allowing large fish to be kept (like Beaver) fall short of the quality distinction IMHO.

For those people against changing regs, not only in Kananaskis but also in designating many more lakes as quality fisheries, have a look at this video of the Manitoba Parkland. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, at least watch the part at 16:40 where the biologist talks about what their plan was for creating such a great fishery.

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/educational/watch/v6451838pz8TAfcK

If anyone can watch this and not be totally convinced that quality fisheries are the way to go (while still keeping put-and-take lakes for Chubbdarter and others who like their grocery bills to be subsidized not by food-stamps but by stocking rates) then you had better check yourself into emergency and get the tumor that is pushing up against your cerebellum removed before you lose bladder control as well as your common sense.

Cheers.


hahahahahahaa.....just so you know im sponsored by KFC so food stamps arent needed. Never once did i oppose this for my benefit, but hey you make up all the fairy tales you want.

im fighting cancer now....so thanks for the medical advice.

[Sundancefisher]

im fighting cancer now....so thanks for the medical advice.

Gezz guy. I am truly sorry to hear it. I hope you beat the crap out of the disease with the same strength and conviction you often :fighting0030: post with. I have lost too many friends and family.

My thoughts and prayers are with you.

Sun

P.S. If you want to bury the hatchet and get away without going far...PM me and I will get you out for some perch if you are up to it...no political talk...just sittin' and fishin'

[Bigtoad]

hahahahahahaa.....just so you know im sponsored by KFC so food stamps arent needed. Never once did i oppose this for my benefit, but hey you make up all the fairy tales you want.

im fighting cancer now....so thanks for the medical advice.

Also, VERY sorry to hear that Chubbdarter. You're too fun not to drag back into the discussion.

Did you watch the video link? If you are thinking about the benefit to others, how could something like what FLIPPR is doing in Manitoba not be beneficial to many, many, many people, young and old alike?

Cheers.

[HunterDave]

Well, I'll start with HunterDave, just to comment on his quote:
"The third would be that it would have to be in the common interests of all users of the body of water and not just a small number of vocal people."

By looking at the results of this poll as well as the results of the government poll on quality fisheries, I think you'll find that it's actually you that are in the "small number of vocal people." I believe the majority of people do want more quality fisheries. Even the lakes designated as "quality" while still allowing large fish to be kept (like Beaver) fall short of the quality distinction IMHO.

My intent with starting this poll was to see what people really thought about the proposal. I suspect that perhaps some people may have viewed this as a challenge to see who could get the most votes for the position that they supported. If that is the case then the results of the poll are skewed.

Similarly, the results from the SRD survey were gathered from an unadvertised poll that was posted on their website for a period of one month. My opinion is that it should have been more widely advertised and distributed in order to get a better understanding of what the general consensus was. I wasn't aware of the survey and didn't fill it out, did you? One method of gathering information would have been to conduct a survey similar to the one that hunters received this Fall regarding the inclusion of crossbows into archery only season.

As far as the petition, it is one sided and only gathers the number of people that support the proposal but doesn't indicate how many people refused to sign it. Despite all of the campaigning to get people to sign it, a petition signed by only -300 people on an outdoorsman with as many members as we have (not including people from other forums) actually indicates to me that there is not allot of support for this initiative and it is indeed a vocal minority that support it. Do you understand my logic?

[chubbdarter]

Gezz guy. I am truly sorry to hear it. I hope you beat the crap out of the disease with the same strength and conviction you often :fighting0030: post with. I have lost too many friends and family.

My thoughts and prayers are with you.

Sun

P.S. If you want to bury the hatchet and get away without going far...PM me and I will get you out for some perch if you are up to it...no political talk...just sittin' and fishin'

thanks Sun ...appreciate it.
there would be no fun in that....peeps would pay to see you and me in cage match in the middle of the lake....lol
cheers and thanks again

[Sundancefisher]

thanks Sun ...appreciate it.
there would be no fun in that....peeps would pay to see you and me in cage match in the middle of the lake....lol
cheers and thanks again

LOL... NO problem. We can take bets as to who will win...then take the money and donate it to make a wish. My niece was fortunate enough to benefit...in an unfortunate place to be in before passing.

[GaryF]

you guys do the cage match, i'll catch dem perch, lol.

[HunterDave]

For those people against changing regs, not only in Kananaskis but also in designating many more lakes as quality fisheries, have a look at this video of the Manitoba Parkland. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, at least watch the part at 16:40 where the biologist talks about what their plan was for creating such a great fishery.

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/educational/watch/v6451838pz8TAfcK

Bigtoad, Did you actually watch this video and understand it? Because I did and the sign with "Must Release All Trout" really stood out to me at the 16:40 mark.

I decided to visit the website at http://www.flippr.ca/mainpage.htm and I learned allot about the program. First of all, you'll find this in the top right corner on the homepage: "Welcome to the FLIPPR Web - World Class Trout Fishery in Manitoba's Parkland". 'Nuff said. :rolleyes:

Then I clicked on "The Lakes" to check what the regs were for the lakes that they were fishing in: http://www.flippr.ca/the_lakes/the_lakes.htm

Persse Lake

Persse Lake will be fully developed during 2010. Currently it has a road, parking lot, launch area and hydro right of way. An aerator building is on site and equipment ready for installation after ice out 2010. It will be stocked with rainbow and/or brown trout in 2010. It will have special trophy regulations, 1 fish allowed under 18 inches(45cm). All fish over 18 inches (45cm) must be released to maintain a stock of huge trout indefinitely.

Remember to pack your camera!

Twin Lakes

Regulations:
Artificial Lures only
Electric Motors only
All Trout Must be Released

I might not be the sharpest pencil in the box but it sounds to me like one lake is a no catch and the other promotes releasing larger spawning sized fish and keeping one smaller eating sized one. Jeez, what a novel concept! Now where have I heard that point before?:thinking-006:

So this is what you envision happening with Upper and Lower Kannanaskis Lakes!!!!:sign0068: Put a zero fish limit on one lake and on the other lake, instead of releasing the +20" spawning sized trout like FLIPPR, make the regs read so that those are the only size that you can keep!!!!

Like I said several times earlier, you guys down south can F'up your fishery all that you want but don't start bringing that sh*t north of Red Deer. :mad0177:

[GaryF]

The one thing that is different is that flippr is creating trophy fisheries, this petition is for a quality fishery, two different ideas. The Bow is managed as a trophy fishery, keep one under 12" the rest go back. A quality fishery is one of delayed harvest until the fish get to a larger size.

Excellent video tho!!

[Bigtoad]

Bigtoad, Did you actually watch this video and understand it? Because I did and the sign with "Must Release All Trout" really stood out to me at the 16:40 mark.

Well HunterDave, at least you took the time to watch it, which I appreciate. I believe the biologist was standing at one of the lakes with strictly catch and release regs. I also believe that the strictly C&R regs are for the lakes with Tiger trout which are as aggressive as hell and would quickly be fished out (not unlike our bull trout regs here). Most other lakes, I believe, are the keep 1 under 18".


http://www.flippr.ca/mainpage.htm[/url] and I learned allot about the program. First of all, you'll find this in the top right corner on the homepage: "Welcome to the FLIPPR Web - World Class Trout Fishery in Manitoba's Parkland". 'Nuff said. :rolleyes

I'm not sure what your problem is about that quote??? Phil Rowley, who has fished all over North America, said the Manitoba Parkland, in his opinion, was the best stillwater trout fishery in all of North America. I would think he knows what he's talking about. Maybe you know more, but I doubt it...

http://www.flippr.ca/the_lakes/the_lakes.htm[/url]

Persse Lake

Persse Lake will be fully developed during 2010. Currently it has a road, parking lot, launch area and hydro right of way. An aerator building is on site and equipment ready for installation after ice out 2010. It will be stocked with rainbow and/or brown trout in 2010. It will have special trophy regulations, 1 fish allowed under 18 inches(45cm). All fish over 18 inches (45cm) must be released to maintain a stock of huge trout indefinitely.

Remember to pack your camera!

Twin Lakes

Regulations:
Artificial Lures only
Electric Motors only
All Trout Must be Released

I might not be the sharpest pencil in the box but it sounds to me like one lake is a no catch and the other promotes releasing larger spawning sized fish and keeping one smaller eating sized one. Jeez, what a novel concept! Now where have I heard that point before?:thinking-006:

Again, the strictly C&R, I believe, is mostly on Tiger trout lakes, but so what if there are a few C&R lakes? Did you see the size of those tanks! By allowing one under 18, you can still harvest some fish, but you don't let the big ones "get away" so to speak. Seems like a good compromise to me: you still get to keep a good pan-sized fish but there are also lots of big fish to catch, kiss, and release.

So this is what you envision happening with Upper and Lower Kannanaskis Lakes!!!!:sign0068: Put a zero fish limit on one lake and on the other lake, instead of releasing the +20" spawning sized trout like FLIPPR, make the regs read so that those are the only size that you can keep!

Nope, I think you've missed my point. I put the video up to show what stricter regs could achieve, not only in K lakes but in other lakes in Alberta as well.

I'm not naive enough to think that the K lakes would become strictly C&R. Ideally, I would prefer the suggested proposal was to release ALL fish under 18 in the K lakes like they are doing in many of the lakes run by FLIPPR. However, there are many people that feel the need to keep the lunkers when they catch them (Even though, in this digital age, you could easily take pics and measurements and still have the fish mounted if you want). Perhaps they are trying to compensate for something??? I don't get it? I strongly believe that we need to release ALL big fish back to spawn or to be caught again.

But I digress; even though the proposed reg changes that we are talking about here aren't what I would prefer for the K lakes (which would be keep 1 under 18" or 20") I do think the delayed harvest is a good idea for any lake and is a step in the right direction. It's better than what is currently there, by a landslide. That is why you'll find my signature on the petition.

Like I said several times earlier, you guys down south can F'up your fishery all that you want but don't start bringing that sh*t north of Red Deer. :mad0177:

Hey, I'm North of Red Deer and I'll do whatever I can to bring as much of this sh*t up here as I can.

And what exactly is "that sh*t" anyway? You watched the video so I'm assuming you saw the size of the fish? I had friends go with Phil Rowley and the Red Deer Fly Tying club to the Manitoba Parkland this past fall and it was the best fishing they had ever experienced. They were catching 26" tiger trout on waterboatmen on the surface. They had double headers and caught fish until their arms were sore. Some of the lakes were harder to fish than others but they caught lots of fish and the average size was well over 18". How is that sh*t? Or do you mean HOLY SH*T, look at this monster!!! In that case, I totally agree with you.

HunterDave, you prefer catching 14" stockers over 26" monsters? Maybe you're just used to handling small things, but I don't understand your logic AT ALL! You want to keep all of the trout lakes in AB to be a limit of 5 and yet still think you'll find a fish over 20"? That's going really well so far.

I understand if you don't like the proposal because of the keeping of some spawning fish over 20", but it's definitely better than what is currently in place; isn't it? Better to do something constructive than bitch and complain about any recommended change and not get anywhere. At least that's my logic...

Cheers.

[goldscud]

Lower Kan was never stocked with rainbows or cutts expecting them to establish a self-sustaining population. For many years no one even knew there was any spawning going on at all in the spring. In the '80s huge numbers of rainbows were dumped in on a put and take basis. Today we have a very small number of adults spawning in less than optimal conditions. Recruitment of young back to the population is marginal. These are not wild fish that require the same protection as the Bull trout. While the concern over keeping "spawner sized" fish does have some merit, the regulations have always allowed folks to keep "spawner sized" fish. New regulations are not changing this fact. In the case of Lower Kan, natural reproduction will never occur at a level to maintain a significant rainbow population. Regulation changes to protect smaller fish will allow a greater percentage of fish to escape to a size over 20" and provide many more fish under 20" to offer entertainment to the masses.

[BGSH]

a change for the better

[Dan Foss]

a change for the better

you are the king of commenting on dead threads. lol

[BGSH]

you are the king of commenting on dead threads. lol

There are just so many to read, going to take months to get through all these threads, i like this thread for the K lakes, i hope they went through with the new regs

[Okotokian]

oops, didn't realize how old this thread was. Amazingly the idea STILL sucks though. LOL

[McLeod]

New Regs kick in starting April