PDA

View Full Version : Slot limit Vs. Lenght limit


Dust1n
02-01-2011, 06:55 PM
lets here your POVs Slot limits are the wayy to go for mebecause i belive w need small and big fish in a lake to sustain a good population or incase somethign else happens

huntsfurfish
02-01-2011, 07:25 PM
Not an easy question.

However, length limit is better in general for AB.

Example - walleye 20" spawn at least once before being removed from the equation. Should be self sustaining. Of course there are so many other variables such as poaching, water fluctuations etc.

But the biggest problem in Alberta is the large amount of fisherman and the much smaller amounts of lakes/reservoirs/rivers than places that have slot limits.

huntsfurfish
02-01-2011, 07:29 PM
Should have added that slot limits could be dangerous to our fish stocks.

Usually slot limits involve smaller sized fish to be kept. While this may sound like a good idea (great fishing for a while) soon there are few fish making it to spawning age/size.

I think it would be a very dangerous gamble.

I have seen collapsed fisheries and dont want to see it again!


Kind of boils down to the fact that we dont have the fisherman to lake ratio that other provinces have and that is why it works there and unlikely here!

Dust1n
02-01-2011, 07:45 PM
i think there should be slot limits for certain fish like pike....:argue2:

nicemustang
02-01-2011, 08:00 PM
Alberta fisheries can't support slot limits. Too few lakes with fish and too much fishing pressure. There would not be any spawners surviving. Slot only works with agressive stocking plans or a place wiht more lakes and more fishing options.

aulrich
02-01-2011, 08:04 PM
I have seen slot limit absolutly turn things around, but other factors come to play, first off can the lake/fish combo handle any harvest. no one rule covers all lakes.

shorthair ptr.
02-01-2011, 08:11 PM
Gonna use the Bay of Quinte (the walleye capital of Canada) as an example. My father keeps me posted to the ON regs. Used to be keep whatever you want. Then it went to a slot limit of four fish between 18"-20" , one could be over 25" (trophy). Now the fishing is getting hot there again as it died off pretty hard for about 8-10yrs. The limit is now 4 fish over 20" ( don't hold me to these new measurements, I had a couple when he told me the other night).
Not that this means only a length limit would work here, but I think it is better than a slot IMO.:)

brohymn2
02-01-2011, 08:36 PM
i beleive calling lake has a slot size of 45-55cmfor walleye, would this be effective?

trainerdave
02-01-2011, 09:17 PM
Length...bigger fish lay more eggs for many years, = more minnows,means more small and medium fish to catch and release-with the chance to bag a jumbo now and then...My 2c...I get bored catching nothing...

Dust1n
02-01-2011, 09:21 PM
i think they should make most lakes C&R and the ponds u an keep fish so the resandent fish dont get fishedout and all we got are stalkers

gramps73
02-01-2011, 09:22 PM
Slot would be the way to go, the way the system is now all the breading stock is being harvested.

Dust1n
02-01-2011, 09:24 PM
x2 but wht i said above your comment to

Team Beef
02-01-2011, 10:40 PM
Length limits work only when the fish are given a chance to spawn more than once.
Slot limits are good if the "slot size" retains the brood stocks while still allowing the angler to retain a smaller fish for a meal or a lifetime trophy fish.
One other conservation tool not mentioned is "Rotational Closures" on water bodies.

horsetrader
02-01-2011, 11:03 PM
Length limits work only when the fish are given a chance to spawn more than once.
Slot limits are good if the "slot size" retains the brood stocks while still allowing the angler to retain a smaller fish for a meal or a lifetime trophy fish.
One other conservation tool not mentioned is "Rotational Closures" on water bodies.

I think a slot limit is the way to go so the angler can keep a smaller fish for eating. But to me keeping a larger fish for a trophy fish is a terrible waste of a fish that could be a strong breeder. With the shortage of fish and the abundance
of fishermen and the awesome reproductions that can be done now there is no reason to keep a trophy. Rotational closures have worked and are a good alternative.

Big Red 250
02-02-2011, 12:10 AM
A lot of lakes in Manitoba have slot limits for walleye of 45cm-70cm.This is all walleye between 18-28 inches have to be released. The fishing has really improved on those lakes.

huntsfurfish
02-02-2011, 06:14 AM
"A lot of lakes in Manitoba have slot limits for walleye of 45cm-70cm.This is all walleye between 18-28 inches have to be released. The fishing has really improved on those lakes. "

The key here is lots of lakes! How many lakes in Manitoba vs here?

I have said on other threads about this topic - water to fisherman ratio.

And likely the only way a slot limit will work in Alberta is if the slot is over the spawning size!!!

If people can keep a fish they will. So what im saying is if they can keep 15 - 18" fish they will keep them. No more spawners eventually.

Back when the limit was 16" for walleye the walleye fisheries collapsed because fish were not making it to spawning size/age.

A slot limit under would be dangerous to our fisheries!

Southern Alberta - still lots of breeders just harder to catch the big hogs!
And lots of fish of all sizes to keep you entertained.

The magic slot limit from other places is not the magic solution! Once again, to little water to many fisherman.

I cant believe people cant see that!

Lower limits, and unfortunately draws might be a solution of last resort.

Ben - rotating closures does not help with our limited water bodies. Creates more pressure on open waters. And growth rates are generally slow.

vettedreamer
02-02-2011, 07:49 AM
draws only that include either slot or length only is a great solution in my eyes. Stop friggin netting anywhere anytime always and make it a non reversable law. Just my one person take !!:fighting0074:

duffy4
02-02-2011, 08:36 AM
If a given lake can stand X amount of harvest you cannot leave it open to an unlimited number of anglers fishing with any kind of kill limit as you have no idea how many fish will be removed. (unless you have a length limit high enough that no fish will be legally harvested)

If you issue a number of tags so that that is the max. legal harvest then you can manage the allowable harvest with the number harvested (give or take).

Even a catch and release fishery will have some hooking/handling mortality. If there are huge numbers of anglers the number of fish killed could be significant.

aulrich
02-02-2011, 09:31 AM
I with duff, tags all round just like deer 1 possession limit per year 10$ per set. the base licence is c&r only. Tag revenue to be only used for fisheries enhancment programs like stocking. Though unlike hunting, party fishing would be allowed at least with kids.

And something like this for pike nothing under 63cm and over 76 basically big enough to spawn once but stop before the size where the fish are mostly female. And to prime the pump with 0 limit for a couple of years.

Sundancefisher
02-02-2011, 10:21 AM
Unfortunately...some things are not so easy to quantify as better management method than another.

Slot methods are only good in a naturally reproducing population if you monitor the success of each size class. If you have a poor size class coming through the system...there is the opportunity to hammer it hard as the population moves through the slot. In turn...very few reach maturity and the impacts can be felt for years to come. This method therefore is a more labour intensive method...but if it is done you can maximize harvest.

Larger fish while they have more eggs actually peak and then the fecundity drops. The benefit to protecting the large fish is to ensure genetics are passed on as not all fish are genetically programmed to grow big.

Length limits need to be set in order to allow for spawning...and enough spawning to protect future fish populations. If the lengths are set at the right amount...it is the simplest method requiring the least management cost.

A weight limit is not at all feasible for many reasons.

No limit is also crazy. A free for all on lakes and rivers would be a royal disaster

horsetrader
02-02-2011, 01:51 PM
[QUOTE=Sundancefisher;820405]Unfortunately...some things are not so easy to quantify as better management method than another.

Slot methods are only good in a naturally reproducing population if you monitor the success of each size class.


[QUOTE=nicemustang;819823]Alberta fisheries can't support slot limits. Too few lakes with fish and too much fishing pressure. There would not be any spawners surviving. Slot only works with agressive stocking plans or a place

I'm confused do we need "a naturally reproducing population" or do we need
"aggressive stocking plans".....Or would we be better with tags with slot limits

Sundancefisher
02-02-2011, 05:01 PM
[QUOTE=Sundancefisher;820405]Unfortunately...some things are not so easy to quantify as better management method than another.

Slot methods are only good in a naturally reproducing population if you monitor the success of each size class.


[QUOTE=nicemustang;819823]Alberta fisheries can't support slot limits. Too few lakes with fish and too much fishing pressure. There would not be any spawners surviving. Slot only works with agressive stocking plans or a place

I'm confused do we need "a naturally reproducing population" or do we need
"aggressive stocking plans".....Or would we be better with tags with slot limits


Unfortunately IMHO it all depends upon the fishery you are talking about. Now I am only referring to fisheries with natural reproduction and no stocking. There is a balance between harvest and growth and population numbers that need monitoring to optimize slot limit regulations. Just slapping a slot limit and then leaving is not necesarily going to work well. For instance a slot limit on Lesser Slave may work because of reduced pressure and water body size. A slot limit on Pigeon Lake may not work due to a higher harvest.

I am an advocate of slot limits and size limits but there has to be the science behind when to use it along with monitoring the impacts to the population before a problem gets to big to correct with regulation tweeking.

Generally slot limits target the high population numbers on a standard fish size distribution curve. This curve is typically high population number of small fish and decreasing in numbers as they age. Disease and predation naturally declines the population. Through in sport fishing harvest and you mess it up. Nature does give a fair bit of flexibility for harvest. Over harvest and the population crashes.

For instance if there is a poor spawning year due to weather or pollution or what have you...then there is a small number of fish in that slot limit...they get hammered by people desperate to kill a fish. It is inevitable. Slot limits focus harvest when harvest should not occur.

Unfortunately...Alberta is not known for flexible management of the fisheries due to a severe lack of funding.

Stocking does not fix a problem of over harvest. It just means it costs more and more to maintain. In a natural population...it is a shame to not manage it better for sustainability.

IMHO

chubbdarter
02-02-2011, 05:10 PM
Hey Sun....good to see you..missed you
can you explain to me....honest ? not trying to start a gong show
Why do the 50cm regs exsist for walleye, its forcing us to eat the baby makers...there must be good reason from scientific reasoning. I just dont get it

thanks

horsetrader
02-02-2011, 05:44 PM
[QUOTE=horsetrader;820574][QUOTE=Sundancefisher;820405]Unfortunately...some things are not so easy to quantify as better management method than another.

Slot methods are only good in a naturally reproducing population if you monitor the success of each size class.





Unfortunately IMHO it all depends upon the fishery you are talking about. Now I am only referring to fisheries with natural reproduction and no stocking. There is a balance between harvest and growth and population numbers that need monitoring to optimize slot limit regulations. Just slapping a slot limit and then leaving is not necesarily going to work well. For instance a slot limit on Lesser Slave may work because of reduced pressure and water body size. A slot limit on Pigeon Lake may not work due to a higher harvest.

I am an advocate of slot limits and size limits but there has to be the science behind when to use it along with monitoring the impacts to the population before a problem gets to big to correct with regulation tweeking.

Generally slot limits target the high population numbers on a standard fish size distribution curve. This curve is typically high population number of small fish and decreasing in numbers as they age. Disease and predation naturally declines the population. Through in sport fishing harvest and you mess it up. Nature does give a fair bit of flexibility for harvest. Over harvest and the population crashes.

For instance if there is a poor spawning year due to weather or pollution or what have you...then there is a small number of fish in that slot limit...they get hammered by people desperate to kill a fish. It is inevitable. Slot limits focus harvest when harvest should not occur.

Unfortunately...Alberta is not known for flexible management of the fisheries due to a severe lack of funding.

Stocking does not fix a problem of over harvest. It just means it costs more and more to maintain. In a natural population...it is a shame to not manage it better for sustainability.

IMHO


Then the ideal solution is to have a tag system that way they can not only control the number of fish harvested but the number of fish in a specific size range too.

Dust1n
02-02-2011, 07:53 PM
hmm thers a SH*T load of ideas hard to settle on one with soo many other options and good evandence to support it....:fighting0074:

Sundancefisher
02-05-2011, 08:27 AM
Hey Sun....good to see you..missed you
can you explain to me....honest ? not trying to start a gong show
Why do the 50cm regs exsist for walleye, its forcing us to eat the baby makers...there must be good reason from scientific reasoning. I just dont get it

thanks

Sorry chub. I was absent for a bit... I did try posting a couple time but AOF unluckily crashed and it would not upload.

Anyways...

Not sure why the specific 20 inch reg for walleye. I can only guess without more information on the water as to why. At 20 inch the walleye should of spawned once...maybe twice. Fecundity or reproductive success is a factor of size but in fact as a fish gets older and bigger...the fecundity at a point does start to drop. While that most likely does not occur at 20 inches...I hypothesis that F&W is just trying to maximize walleye killing/harvest by letting all walleye spawn once before harvest.

One thing F&W probably does not take into account is the fact that such size selection in a naturally reproducing population does lead to genetic altering of the population. Gene selection for walleye that mature smaller and grow slower will be selectively passed on through the generations versus selecting for walleye that grow faster and mature bigger.

This is no different than hunting...whereby if you continually harvest all the biggest and strongest bucks...the weaker, smaller bucks do a bunch more reproducing. The genetics get weakened over time.

In a walleye lake with a 20 inch size limit...there is probably significant pressure and harvest. If not...there should be lots of bigger walleye anyways. If harvest was not high...slot limits would probably work to provide size balance and allow some to get bigger. A much higher size limit would denote an attempt at maintaining a trophy fishery.

If your concern is that there are not enough walleye or not bigger walleye...F&W probably has some size frequency data for your favorite lake. If growth rates are good...you could suggest a larger size limit. It would allow more spawning and after a few years passes the walleye would be continually harvestable again...but bigger.

I someone asked me if it makes more management sense to kill a 10 lb walleye or kill a 4 pound walleye...if the 10 lber is at the end of its lifespan and only has another year or two to spawn...I would say kill the big one or maybe not. It probably has few eggs...but it has great genes... Still at that size the genes have been passed on it's genes all ready. As a sportsman...if there was a chance others would have the excitement and photos and stories of catching and releasing the brute I would put it back. If I wanted to eat something and the lake was pretty big and the fish unlikely to be caught again...I might eat it.

I rambled...as usual...did I answer your question?

Sun

P.S. Still waiting for you to PM and come and eat some perch...bring a marmish...they seem to slay em good.

chubbdarter
02-05-2011, 11:29 AM
thanks Sun
other than the fact i had to google some of your fancy words i understand.
i just wonder as you point out about the genetic facts of a big walleye. I watch on 4 lakes walleye spawning and wonder why we are allowed to legally harvest fish with the genes to make more trophies.
i not against eating a few eyes, i just question why the law kinda forces us to kill a premium spawner.
thanks.

i know....badback has invited me also....i'll pm you my cell and lets do it..thanks

Sundancefisher
02-06-2011, 09:43 AM
thanks Sun
other than the fact i had to google some of your fancy words i understand.
i just wonder as you point out about the genetic facts of a big walleye. I watch on 4 lakes walleye spawning and wonder why we are allowed to legally harvest fish with the genes to make more trophies.
i not against eating a few eyes, i just question why the law kinda forces us to kill a premium spawner.
thanks.

i know....badback has invited me also....i'll pm you my cell and lets do it..thanks

Fact is...F&W's mandate historically for years was to maximize harvest for Albertans. Philosophy was always...if Sundancefisher goes fishing and spends $20 on gas...then he should bring home $20 worth of fish. In the olden days...when there were fewer fishermen, smaller population base in the province and higher fish stocks...this worked. Now with great and greater numbers of fishermen, crashing stocks of walleye, grayling, pike, perch, whitefish, bull trout, sturgeon, native cutthroat trout etc., it is an outdated way of thinking.

We have seen trophy fisheries in the past...it was where sampling and/or anecdotal evidence suggested higher than expected numbers of larger fish. F&W then implemented the regs but more than likely due to lack of funding never followed up most lakes with studies.

Other bodies of water that could support larger fish or grow more quality fish like you are suggesting were never considered for anything other than a harvestable resource. As populations crashed...supplementing with stocking occurred but rarely did correcting the over harvesting problem.

With moratoriums on catching some species and in some cases too little to late...people rebel and demand the catches of the past. F&W still feels the pressure of this group as it follows ancient politics and philosophy. As newer generations take over in F&W we get different ideas and new paradigms in which to try and manage the fishery. The quality fishery concept for stocked lakes is one excellent example. Take trout...let them grow prior to harvest...provides larger fish to eat and more fish to catch. Balances the recreational aspect of sport fishing with the desire to harvest fish.

Some people would rebel at the idea of moving the minimum size for walleye from 20 inches to say 24 inches or bigger. What would the impact be...? A short period where few walleye are harvestable...until growth rates catch up then harvesting as usual.

I am not a big walleye guy any more...someone needs to contact F&W and suggest it...maybe start a NEW THREAD discussion on this board and direct F&W to read the comments. Maybe start a petition. However...the problem with native populations is that maybe one lake is good at 20 inches...one is better at 24 inches and others at 26 inches...

all the above IMHO

Sun

baptiste_moose
02-13-2011, 07:00 PM
Poaching and improper handling of fish as well as people not fishing barbless all have weight when makeing decisions on regs. The location of the lake can be a huge factor aswell. Don't quote me on this but I think about 7 % of fish do not survive when release in the summer alone. This number goes up in the winter and increases with the age of the fish. Who's caught a big fish and nursed it for almost 10 min before? Can't say everyone is practicing proper release techniques. If met alot of high functioning retards out there.

natureboy
02-14-2011, 05:31 PM
My thoughts are that a slot limit on some species would be a great system. It would be most beneficial to the pike and walleye fisheries in my opinion. Take a lake like Gull lake for example...used to produce those 25 pounders every winter...now in the past for years the biggest is 12. The problem I think that is there is that the larger a fish gets the more the odds are stacked against it. If there were a system in play were fish could only be taken between say 25 to 35 inches your large fish would have a chance. Those large ones after making it to the 35 inch mark would then be in the lake to produce lots of small fish to continue to supply the lake. It would also provide the chance of a trophy. I also think by implementing this system the small to medium sized fish wouldn't take over the lake. These fish would become the perfect sized fish for a guy to take home to the family. Right or wrong, these are my thoughts. Case in point, the management practices in play here are clearly not working.

Dust1n
02-14-2011, 06:00 PM
ya i agree but when you take a fish ANY fish over 63 cm using pike for example. you can keep a 35lber or a 3lber if its over 63 cms it protects smaller fish but leaves te bigger or trophy fish fair game for everyone o take or kill o do hatever thy please with it.