Quality Trout Fisheries in Alberta

[Bigtoad]

SRD seems to be dragging their feet creating quality stillwater trout fisheries in this province. They aerate a number of lakes trying to develop larger fish and more of them, yet still allow limits of 5 fish and the use of bait. I believe the Alberta gov't even polled a number of anglers wondering if they valued quality fisheries and if memory serves me correctly, the answer was a resounding "yes." Yet there seems to be a lot of reluctance to change any regs?

Sooooo... I thought I would post my own poll and see what mixed bag we can come up with. Please post reason for choice as well so I can try to understand the rationale behind your opinion (even if it is the wrong opinion:))

Cheers.

[nicemustang]

I haven't voted yet...still thinking. But every lake out there can't support any of the options. Every lake is different and one has to consider the population and popular fisheries.

Seems to be a lot of fish biologists on here lately. I'm not sure of everyone's background, but I am no fish biologist. Most of the stocked trout waters are to satisfy the put and take fisherman, families looking for fun, or convenience on location or accessiblity. So changing all lakes, no. Changing a few? Maybe.

Personally I know trout ponds are put and take. So if I'm going I likely want to catch and keep a few for the table, regardless of size. Since the SRD can't manage the perch and walleye fisheries so people can eat them....then the trout lakes have to stay the way they are or poaching will be our next biggest concern (far more than it is today).

So I support taking more lakes and reducing the limit or size restrictions but not every lake can be painted with the same brush.

[nicemustang]

Also one more thing. Everyone fishes for different reasons. I am not a trophy hunter and not a flower girl that feels the need to protect every living thing. So I don't support C&R only lakes.

[Bigtoad]

Nicemustang, I'm aware that not all lakes can sustain each of the above suggestions. I'm assuming here that if a lake could sustain this, which preference would you have. In an ideal world, what would you want of the choices given?

Also, choosing C&R doesn't make you a "flowergirl" it just means that you want to catch something bigger than 12" and that you value the quality of your fishing more than the quantity of fish you bring home to show your "flowergirl" how big and tough you are.

Of course, it would be nice to catch and keep 5 fish all over 25" but that's just not going to happen, and if it does, it won't be happening for very long.

Cheers.

[Dak1138]

I only do catch and release and wouldn't mind catching some larger fish. i think the way muir is set up is pretty good.

[chubbdarter]

and we are off and running again

[Okotokian]

I'm having a hard time answering because I'm starting to suspect I have different expectations than most fishermen.

I don't need to take many fish, perhaps one, maybe two. The bigger the better. But as to fish I catch and release, I really don't care how big they are. So none of the options given really reflect what I'd like. The "with a chance to" would be great if it was modified to "chance to catch a ^#&#%-load of fish!" ;)

[HunterDave]

and we are off and running again

Yup, I'm staying out of this one but it ought to be good.

I know, why not change the regs for Upper Kananaskis Lake and reduce the possession limit but increase the keep size in order to create a quality fishery? :party0052:

[flyfisherman]

I would personally like to have a few lakes classified as only C&R. Having the option of going out to catch a couple of fish for dinner or going out and trying to catch a monster would be great.
I'd probably spend more time on the C&R lakes if there was the option.

[Bigtoad]

I'm not suggesting all lakes should become C&R or a 5 fish limit either. I just want to know what people would prefer, recognizing that there needs to be a spectrum of fishing opportunities in Alberta and not just one choice.

I'd gladly catch and keep less fish if it means that they are bigger fish on average but that's just my opinion and I would like to hear others opinions as well and I'll try to keep an open mind.

Cheers.

[AbProwler]

Tough to give an educated un-biased answer to this. I know, that growing up in the interior of B.C. and on Vancouver Island, that I much prefered the taste of the smaller, cold, fast moving stream Rainbows than any of the larger Still water Trout. Out here, I have kept some of the 8" put and take variety.
Lets just say that after eating a few of those I became a fan of C&R.
Maybe at this time of year, a 12"-16" Trout would make a nice dinner?

[chubbdarter]

Yup, I'm staying out of this one but it ought to be good.

I know, why not change the regs for Upper Kananaskis Lake and reduce the possession limit but increase the keep size in order to create a quality fishery? :party0052:

your gonna be missed

[Darren N]

I would personally like to have a few lakes classified as only C&R. Having the option of going out to catch a couple of fish for dinner or going out and trying to catch a monster would be great.
I'd probably spend more time on the C&R lakes if there was the option.

I agree - having a lake like Muir (with no bait) really helps out for those that want to fish and have a hope of catching something decent. Not all the lakes should be that way but a few more like Muir would not be a bad idea. All I'm saying is spread out the options a bit more. Keep those few lakes that you can keep 5, but make some of them stricter regs so that come fall they are not fished out like Beaumont...

[chubbdarter]

here's my opinion, for what little its worth
this is just another thread with a new paint job.
If Albertans wanted the change it would be a slam dunk, issue over, mission complete.....thousands lining up to sign petitions, protests on government steps, the government office would be hammered by emails from sportfishermen protesting your cause, the mail man would require a back operation.
Im not picking sides because this is redundant.....but the facts are if they are ignoring you or dragging their feet....the issue isnt probably getting much support.
If thats the case maybe you should respect what the majority wants, or with the greatest respect-move to where your happy with fishery management.
Im not sure where your from so this may not include you BUT im getting a little tired of all the know it alls that move here and say "well back home we did things different Alberta sucks". HAHAHA . GO HOME!!!!..p.s. most of those complainers just simply arent good fisherman(not directed at the op because i have no facts to say that)
Constructive suggestions are good but im guessing this will be a bashing of a few bait fisherman that eat a few trout every year, of which im not.
But it will be good to see a few members that kinda drifted away return again for this thread.
I wish you the best on your quest and hope the majority voice wins who ever that may be.
cd

[HunterDave]

I'm not suggesting all lakes should become C&R or a 5 fish limit either. I just want to know what people would prefer, recognizing that there needs to be a spectrum of fishing opportunities in Alberta and not just one choice.

There's already more than just one choice isn't there? Different lakes different regs. Do you mean more of a certain choice? :)

[AbProwler]

As I seem to be the only one here that posted anything about growing up somewheres else, It would seem the above reference would be directed in my direction. Of course I never said anything about how it was done there or that it sucked here, so I must have taken the above out of context.

[chubbdarter]

As I seem to be the only one here that posted anything about growing up somewheres else, It would seem the above reference would be directed in my direction. Of course I never said anything about how it was done there or that it sucked here, so I must have taken the above out of context.

nope not at all...but the fishing section is loaded with very derogatory comments....none made by you....sorry i never meant that directed at you.

[Daceminnow]

Also one more thing. Everyone fishes for different reasons. I am not a trophy hunter and not a flower girl that feels the need to protect every living thing. So I don't support C&R only lakes.

flower girl - that's awesome! be careful you might get yourself a new handle.


QUOTE=chubbdarter
Im not sure where your from so this may not include you BUT im getting a little tired of all the know it alls that move here and say "well back home we did things different Alberta sucks". HAHAHA . GO HOME!!!!..p.s. most of those complainers just simply arent good fisherman

chubb i seen another name calling in you're future!

[AbProwler]

nope not at all...but the fishing section is loaded with very derogatory comments....none made by you....sorry i never meant that directed at you.

Nah all's well C.D., as I said, "I" took it out of context.:love0025:

[chubbdarter]

flower girl - that's awesome! be careful you might get yourself a new handle.


QUOTE=chubbdarter
Im not sure where your from so this may not include you BUT im getting a little tired of all the know it alls that move here and say "well back home we did things different Alberta sucks". HAHAHA . GO HOME!!!!..p.s. most of those complainers just simply arent good fisherman

chubb i seen another name calling in you're future!

Pffffftttt

the constant we need this we need that....for example not directed at anyone
look at the walleye discussion in southern alberta.....never a well based opionion with facts...most dont know where they even spawn.....yet Alberta sucks at walleye management.....back home in province x we did it this way. just because you cant catch a fish doesnt make it the governments fault.....take a good long look at your self. Or go fishing where you can catch a fish.
southern alberta walleye fishing is superb!!!
maybe what people really are asking for is the government to genetically raise stupid fish???....and change the regs to say.....2012 catching regulations....instead of the 2011 fishing regulations

[Bigtoad]

Im not picking sides because this is redundant.....
Really?


but the facts are if they are ignoring you or dragging their feet....the issue isnt probably getting much support.
See, here you go picking sides. :fighting0074:

And it's not true. The gov't has found that there is a growing number of anglers in Alberta that want more quality fisheries. So the SRD dragging their feet may have very little to do with what most fishermen want. It might just mean that they are inefficient, underfunded, and undermanned.

This is one reason I put the poll up. I wanted to see a sample of outdoor enthusiasts and what their preference was for trout fisheries here in Alberta.


If thats the case maybe you should respect what the majority wants, or with the greatest respect-move to where your happy with fishery management.

After the poll is finished Chubbdarter, lets see who really needs to move. It hasn't even been up for a day and already there is a very large majority that seem to value quality over quantity. Hmmmmm... interesting.....

Cheers.

[chubbdarter]

Really?


See, here you go picking sides. :fighting0074:

And it's not true. The gov't has found that there is a growing number of anglers in Alberta that want more quality fisheries. So the SRD dragging their feet may have very little to do with what most fishermen want. It might just mean that they are inefficient, underfunded, and undermanned.

This is one reason I put the poll up. I wanted to see a sample of outdoor enthusiasts and what their preference was for trout fisheries here in Alberta.



After the poll is finished Chubbdarter, lets see who really needs to move. It hasn't even been up for a day and already there is a very large majority that seem to value quality over quantity. Hmmmmm... interesting.....

Cheers.

hahahahaha im not moving....im not complaining i cant catch fish
i see the old gang is logged on.....lol

[tbosch]

It wouldnt bother me if I was not able to ever keep another fish. I think if things were left to nature, its obvious a balance would come back to our waters and there would be good quality fisheries everywhere. Just my opinion.

[1/2 oz Bucktail]

So here we go. I have seen this issue brought up so many times over a number of message boards. Most of the time (but not always), it is started by a flyfisher who is ****ed because all he/she catches are little stockers. Now there is nothing wrong with fly fishers as I am one, but this debate is getting damn old and tired.

Maybe we should look at creating some privatized lakes similar to those found in gated communities in both Edmonton and Calgary. Create a fishing club at protected/restricted access lakes where some of the people looking to catch large stocked trout.
(Yes it does sound lame to me........ Large stocked trout that is, maybe its because I am lucky enough to live in a place where I don't need a stocked slough to be my only source of fishing).
Fees collected for the club can be used to purchase larger fish for stocking as well as covering costs for aeration. The managing comitee of said clubs/lakes can make managment decisions as to restricting any fishing in the event of poor conditions (high water temps in the summer). I don't know how this would work, but I imagine alot of the ****ed off flyfishermen would be happy to have a place where they can all hang out together and compare their amazing catches of genetically modified plastic fish that they so expertly bobber fished (oops I mean strike indicator) from a swamp with their custom built fly rods (dammit, there goes my sarcasm again) far removed from all of those horrible parents and little children who love to be outside learning the joys of fishing regrdless of fish size (wow, I sure am letting the sarcasm slip again).

Anyways not sure if the whole private lake thing would work, but it does seem like it could solve the frustrations of a few bobber fishermen (sorry I meant to say still water fly anglers). As I kind of mentioned before, I am pretty sure that most children do not care if all they catch is little stockers, the same goes for the parents, grandparents etc who take these kids out to learn how to fish.

Wouldn't it suck if you were a kid and all you had for fishing was a trout pond nearby that got turned into a bait ban C&R pond? Yeah I am generalizing a bit but I think that most get the picture.

Sorry to all of the flyfishers that i know I offended. I just never got into the whole still water flyfishing thing (not enough patience for it).

[Bigtoad]

1/2 oz Bucktail, it would suck if you were a kid and all you could find anywhere were C&R fishing where bait wasn't allowed. But that's not what we're talking about here. There are LOTS of community ponds and lakes around designated for just such a purpose. What Alberta doesn't have is many lakes designated as quality or trophy fisheries for those that want to catch bigger fish.

And I don't think private lakes are the answer. It stinks of elitism and I don't think just the wealthy and their buddies should be entitled to catch monster fish while the rest aren't given the opportunity.

Which brings me to my last point, about insinuating that fly fishermen can't catch big fish so they bitch about the regs. This isn't the case. What I am concerned with is that with 5 fish and the use of bait, on MANY waters, no one is given the opportunity to catch big fish.

What I want in this poll is to see, if given the option, what opportunities fishermen would want.

But hey, if you're happy with a mediocre trout fishery in Alberta, that's fine, I would just like there to be more options for people who want to put the time and effort into catching big fish. I don't see that here in Alberta.

Cheers.

[Bigtoad]

There's already more than just one choice isn't there? Different lakes different regs. Do you mean more of a certain choice? :)

Well, I'm interested in what the numbers from the poll tell us. Right now, well over 50% of the voters would prefer bigger fish and keeping only 1 or total C&R.

If you look at the current tout lakes, I believe there are roughly 300 stocked lakes in Alberta, of which, roughly 10 or less have special regulations on them to try and achieve a quality fishery. Although there is some choice in what type of fishing you'd like to do, the choice doesn't seem to measure up to the preference that is out there.

Cheers.

[1/2 oz Bucktail]

There is/are an amazing trout fishery(ies) in Alberta, well above what some would call mediocre where fish over 30 inches are common and no stocking or aeration is required.

What are these magical spaces that I speak of you say?

They are our western streams, creeks and rivers, where at the proper time and location any fisherperson (gear or fly) can tie into the badest mofo of the eastern slopes. Yup the bull trout.

Oh wait bulls are char and not trout. I gues my argument falls.

These fisheries can also be home to amazing grayling, bows (both native and introduced), whites (very underrated), cutts, introduced browns, brookies (the devil, the downfall of flowing water in the west).

Maybe we should focus money, management, and enforcement on our rivers and streams to ensure that we maintain healthy, viable populations of our beloved native fish species. The bulls, grayling, athabows and in some locations the cutties.

[dragon]

It wouldnt bother me if I was not able to ever keep another fish. I think if things were left to nature, its obvious a balance would come back to our waters and there would be good quality fisheries everywhere. Just my opinion.

Are we not part of nature? I know this is highly debatable but I'm sure 'man' was been fishing in these waters far before regulations and stocking...woudl not infuencing fish populations throught size quotas and stocking create a quality fishery? I can't answer it

[1/2 oz Bucktail]

In regards to your poll. Do you think that by posting on a forum for avid hunters and fishermen you are effectively capturing the views of all of the users of Alberta's stocked waters? Yeah sure you have over 50% on this forum saying that they would value better quality fisheries but the people answering the poll may only account for 10% of the people fishing these lakes. So once again to reiterate what was said by a previous poster.... are better quality fisheries, ie trophy class trout ponds (that always makes me laugh) what the fishing masses want? Or is it the want of the few who choose to voice their opinion on a website that probably covers a very small demographic?

Just some thoughts.

[dragon]

Is there not more to creating trophy lakes than controlling the number of fish harvested from such loactions? Food supply, temperature, lake size, natural predators, Humans in other ways than angling all contribute to fish development.

The reason we may not have trophy lakes could extend far beyond qunatities caught and released. I'm not saying it doesn't have an affect on fish sizes but trophy fish are trophy for a reason...

[dragon]

In regards to your poll. Do you think that by posting on a forum for avid hunters and fishermen you are effectively capturing the views of all of the users of Alberta's stocked waters? Yeah sure you have over 50% on this forum saying that they would value better quality fisheries but the people answering the poll may only account for 10% of the people fishing these lakes. So once again to reiterate what was said by a previous poster.... are better quality fisheries, ie trophy class trout ponds (that always makes me laugh) what the fishing masses want? Or is it the want of the few who choose to voice their opinion on a website that probably covers a very small demographic?

Just some thoughts.

statistics can make any lie look truthful.

your right that this may or may not be a fair representation of the population. What about people that want to use the lake for other activities. Do they have a say? I mean I really hate when fisherman park their boats an the calmest part of the lake when I want to go for a ski!:thinking-006:

[chubbdarter]

im just guessing at this....but i think even if you put this poll up on the bait fridge at the tackle store or gas station those people wont vote either.
It a different mind-set. They are just so excited to grab some worms and snacks and get their families out fishing. Spend family time together and maybe see their kids catch fish.
Do we build soccer domes for avid soccer players headed to the pros...or for little johnny who just wants to kick a ball?
Fishing may or not be a obsession with them...heck it may be a one or two time event for them.....but im betting they are the vast majority fisherman counted as fishing days in Alberta
They probably dont even join forums.
In a democratic society is that right?...maybe not...like the saying goes if you dont vote dont whine.
The government looks at moneys spent in licenses to determine many things. If we lose this catagory of fisherman...how will it also impact the overall fishery funding?
Im not against you Bigtoad i hope you push thru a solution to get a big fish fishery and yet not impact the happy fisherman who enjoy it the way it is.
Simply put....i rather see a happy smiling child holding a 6inch fish over a 40 year old man posing with a 30inch fish.
Im curious if you dont mind.....what did you vote for on your own poll?

[DuckBrat]

More quality fisheries please. A point was brought up by someone earlier that he was unsure if a lot of our lakes can produce quality fisheries and that was why officials had decided to allow current regs (5 fish limits) to continue.

Historically in Alberta, lakes like Carson (Whitecourt), Hasse (Edmonton), Dickson Dam, Ashland Dam, and numerous other water bodies proved annually of the ability to pump out massive trout 30+ inchers (12 pounds). A combination of increasing fishing pressure and brailnless harvest has wiped out the possibility of seeing these fish sizes ever again. Take a fish or two for the pan but a stringer of 6" rainbows stocked an hour ago, WTF is that? Time to fix these trailer park regulations on a number of lakes and bring quality fisheries back to the province. Save some of the waters with the daily 5 fish for the lake rapers, bait tubbers/litter bugs, and bring back the good stuff to those lakes that have proven production as mentioned above. Manitoba went this route in the Parkland and now see 3-5 million dollars pumped into the local economy every season from fly fishing tourism. Pays for the aerators and the jobs.

http://www.flippr.ca/about_flippr/aboutflippr.htm

On a related note:

Who's choice was it to put the trout project on Muir anyway? With the water level dropped as much as it had at the time the project initiated, it was senseless waste of cash. Low water has stagnated and limited that fishery. Good intention bad location. Should have aerated Star lake and dropped some C&R there we'd be seeing 30" fish on a daily basis.


Oh by the way I'm a fisheries biologist.

[pipco]

Hmm...some interesting comments and differing points of view. I'll throw my perspective in as well. I'm a C&R fisherman but have no problem with folks catching and keeping a few for the pan. If I was lucky enough to snag a few 10" plus perch on the fly I might consider a few for a meal.
In my younger days there were numerous family fishing trips when we caught and kept most everything and prevalent attitudes back then were that there would always be lots of fish left, which clearly wasn't the case when considering many collapsed walleye lakes. I've had my share of walleye and perch over the years and no longer feel the need to keep any. I've also eaten pothole trout in the past and did not enjoy it.
In the Edmonton area we're lucky enough to have one little lake that has some restrictions on it where you can get out, enjoy the fresh air and potentially catch a 26" rainbow. One the other hand there are a number of other trout lakes that are put and take. One that is no longer being stocked as it is been basically destroyed as a trout fishery by the illegal introduction of perch and pike. This is a different issue and has been discussed in many other threads. I'm perfectly fine with current regs on lakes that generally suffer from winter kill, though it would be awesome to have an aerator on Chickakoo. Again, topic for another thread. If we had maybe one more trout lake, Star for example that had some size and limit restrictions it may provide folks with an alternative to catching smaller fish.
Just my two cents.
stan

[Bigtoad]

There is/are an amazing trout fishery(ies) in Alberta, well above what some would call mediocre where fish over 30 inches are common and no stocking or aeration is required.

What are these magical spaces that I speak of you say?

They are our western streams, creeks and rivers, where at the proper time and location any fisherperson (gear or fly) can tie into the badest mofo of the eastern slopes. Yup the bull trout.

Oh wait bulls are char and not trout. I gues my argument falls.



Ummmmm... I don't want to burst your bubble there 1/2 oz, but have a look at why these streams aren't mediocre:
- bull trout- total Catch and release
- cutties- many of our best waters, like the North Ram, are catch and release.
-browns- many of our best waters, like Prairie creek, are catch and release.

If it wasn't for catch and release, do you think you could still find a bull in Alberta bigger than 30"? Let's not kid ourselves.

Wouldn't the same reasoning work for stillwater fisheries in Alberta as well? Bonk less big fish= catch bigger fish on average.


And yes, you and Chubbdarter bring up good points that a poll on this website might not be totally indicative of the entire fishing population of Alberta. However, I think it's a pretty good sampling. You have elitist fly chuckers, bait huckers, weekend warriors, and probably a few guides that frequent this site. It seems like a pretty diverse sample group. I know if I go onto a flyfishing forum and posted this, the numbers would be even more skewed toward quality over quantity.

You can argue whatever you like about the stats, but I don't think you could argue that with 300 stocked lakes in Alberta with less than 10 of those having regulations that try to promote a quality fishery, that that is fulfilling the demand for quality fisheries in Alberta. 50 stocked lakes with special regs still wouldn't meet the need (or want?) of fishermen in Alberta who want the opportunity to catch big fish in a lake/pond.

I'm actually surprised how many Catch and release votes there are. I voted that way as well but really like the one under 18" option. However, with a one year old that, God willing, will love to fish, I understand those that would prefer to keep 3, which seems to be the next favourite answer.

Those that are voting for keeping 3 or 5, is it fishing with young children that are swaying you that way or do you really like keeping pan-fry sized trout? I really am interested to know the reasoning.

Cheers.

[huntin'fool]

There is/are an amazing trout fishery(ies) in Alberta, well above what some would call mediocre where fish over 30 inches are common and no stocking or aeration is required.

What are these magical spaces that I speak of you say?

They are our western streams, creeks and rivers, where at the proper time and location any fisherperson (gear or fly) can tie into the badest mofo of the eastern slopes. Yup the bull trout.

Oh wait bulls are char and not trout. I gues my argument falls.

These fisheries can also be home to amazing grayling, bows (both native and introduced), whites (very underrated), cutts, introduced browns, brookies (the devil, the downfall of flowing water in the west).

Maybe we should focus money, management, and enforcement on our rivers and streams to ensure that we maintain healthy, viable populations of our beloved native fish species. The bulls, grayling, athabows and in some locations the cutties.


Geez Kyle,
If only we all had our own private fisheries where we could go down, sit below a set of beautiful waterfalls and catch the stupidist fish in the province with little to no skill....Hmmmm I guess access is kind of an issue for most normal people eh?

I'm actually really surprised that you don't see the validity of enhancing our stocking program to offer a wider range of opportunity to cater to a larger crowd. I also don't bother fishing at most socked trout lakes as the stocking rates are way too high and catching 30-40 9" trout in an evening just does not appeal to me. BUT that's just me - there are plenty of people out there who would be tickled pink to be able to catch 30-40 dinkers in an outing. I believe the gov't needs to accomodate the public in a broader fashion, not have to go and create our own freakin' lakes.

I love to fish and support conservation, but being able to take home an 18" trout and throw it on the bbQ with some butter/onions/seasoning is a beautiful thing, that's what we pay for. Albeit, a stocked fish, but I would rather kill a stocked fish than any fish in our streams in western alberta. But i'm sure a purist like yourself would not understand the barbaric need for the occasional protein boost of the pisces variety.

We were succesful last year with our lobbying and got three local lakes in the Hinton/Grande Cache changed to be "quality" fisheries. Bait ban, one trout limit over 40cm. This is what we want...now just need to adjust stocking rates to accomodate some better growth patterns. BUT GUESS WHAT????? There is still Grande Cache Lake, Victor Lake, 2 of 3 Pierre Grey Lakes, Kinky, Wildhorse, Jarvis pond, wildhorse 2, marygregg etc etc. in the immediate local vicinity. These lakes are very accesible to the general public and will cater the the vast majority of folks who enjoy catching lots of small trout. Perfect - both sides win.

Guys, seriously, lobby your local fish bio, even tell him to talk to the bio in Edson - he himself is an avid angler and understands this stuff. We will see some great trout fishing in the future yet, I'm hopeful.

[HunterDave]

Those that are voting for keeping 3 or 5, is it fishing with young children that are swaying you that way or do you really like keeping pan-fry sized trout? I really am interested to know the reasoning.
Cheers.

I voted 3 up to 16" but only because that was the best choice for me of all the options presented. However, the way that the regs are now I have the option of keeping 5 fish bigger than that size if I wanted to. That would be my real choice. :)

I don't have any young kids but I do like to eat some of the fish that I catch. The size that I chose is the perfect eating size IMO. I'd eat one and put two in the freezer and when they were gone I'd go catch and keep 3 more. :p

If you want to catch a big fish, take a picture, measure and release it and then get a replica made to put on your wall, there are currently bodies of water where you can do that. Why would anyone want to change the current opportunities for other anglers just to make it easier for themselves to catch bigger fish? I don't get it? :confused0024:

[GaryF]

If you want to catch a big fish, take a picture, measure and release it and then get a replica made to put on your wall, there are currently bodies of water where you can do that.

Could you tell me where these places are pls?

[Bigtoad]

I voted 3 up to 16" but only because that was the best choice for me of all the options presented. However, the way that the regs are now I have the option of keeping 5 fish bigger than that size if I wanted to. That would be my real choice. :)

I think you misread the poll options. I was suggesting that if the limit was 3 fish of any size, that most fish in the lake would be less than 16". If you caught one bigger than that, you could still keep it. Heck, if you were lucky enough to catch 3 bigger than that, you could whack all 3!


If you want to catch a big fish, take a picture, measure and release it and then get a replica made to put on your wall, there are currently bodies of water where you can do that. Why would anyone want to change the current opportunities for other anglers just to make it easier for themselves to catch bigger fish? I don't get it? :confused0024:
I totally agree with you about releasing big fish but I see changing the current "opportunities" a lot different from you HunterDave. I don't know a lot of waterbodies that have a 5 fish limit and have fish over 20". Swan Lake by Valleyview is one but overall size there seems to be going down as well and most likely will continue as fishing pressure increases. I know of one other lake that I won't mention that has a 5 fish limit and some lunkers but don't know of any others.

HunterDave, can you think of even 3 lakes (don't need to name them) out of the 300 stocked lakes that have:
1. a 5 fish limit
2. allow bait
3. are accessible (so within 100m of a road)
4. have some fishing pressure
that you can regularly (nearly every time you fish it) catch a trout larger than 20"?

I want the regs to change not so it is EASIER to catch big fish (although that would be a nice byproduct), I want them changed so that it is POSSIBLE to catch big fish. Big difference. I don't think you can have all 4 of the items I listed and still have a reasonable chance of catching big fish, regardless of how good a fishermen you are.

Some of the posters on here seem to feel that catching big trout in stocked lakes has more to do with superior fishing skill and that the regs aren't the issue, but the lack of fishing knowledge. I think that when you are allowed to take 5 fish out of a lake, that if there is ANY fishing pressure on that lake, you could be the Chuck Norris of fishing and won't be able to catch fish over 20" because someone beat you to it and bonked that fish when it was 12".

Cheers.

[Bigtoad]

We were succesful last year with our lobbying and got three local lakes in the Hinton/Grande Cache changed to be "quality" fisheries. Bait ban, one trout limit over 40cm. This is what we want...now just need to adjust stocking rates to accomodate some better growth patterns. BUT GUESS WHAT????? There is still Grande Cache Lake, Victor Lake, 2 of 3 Pierre Grey Lakes, Kinky, Wildhorse, Jarvis pond, wildhorse 2, marygregg etc etc. in the immediate local vicinity. These lakes are very accesible to the general public and will cater the the vast majority of folks who enjoy catching lots of small trout. Perfect - both sides win.

Guys, seriously, lobby your local fish bio, even tell him to talk to the bio in Edson - he himself is an avid angler and understands this stuff. We will see some great trout fishing in the future yet, I'm hopeful.
Huntin'Fool, would you mind sharing how you went about lobbying for more quality fisheries? You can even just PM if you want (or maybe start a new thread???) but I would love to know what it takes to actually see change and not just talk about it.

Cheers.

[Freedom55]

Did you sleep through the long winded debate between someone from S.E. Calgary (the fellow with the private perch pond sans the oil company sponsored trip to the north coast) and several other forum members concerning a certain family lake in the eastern Rockies and the desire to petition SRD for changes to the regulations there? I did not see your ideas floated during that debate.

At first, and until I looked you up, I thought you were him singing the same song with a different title.

Over 300 posts in three threads of wasted bandspace related to a handful of fellas who were lobbying us to bend to his will to create a "quality" fishery. All of which I followed and kept copious notes on. More than half of those posts were made by the same urbanite who asked us to "...keep the debate in one place so he would have an easier time correcting us all...". Talk about elitism.

Alberta is known far and wide for the world-class trout fishery on the Bow downstream of Calgary, and for the big pike that are available almost anywhere. Not good enough for you?

Go north young man. You are close enough to world class char family angling to make your argument moot to those of us that must drive more than three hours to get to a spot that is not overwhelmed with latter day anglers who fish because Rapala says they should purchase all 2765 varieties/colors of their crankbaits. And even that might not be far enough.

Free (to say no)

[Bigtoad]

Did you sleep through the long winded debate between someone from S.E. Calgary (the fellow with the private perch pond sans the oil company sponsored trip to the north coast) and several other forum members concerning a certain family lake in the eastern Rockies and the desire to petition SRD for changes to the regulations there? I did not see your ideas floated during that debate.

At first, and until I looked you up, I thought you were him singing the same song with a different title.

Over 300 posts in three threads of wasted bandspace related to a handful of fellas who were lobbying us to bend to his will to create a "quality" fishery. All of which I followed and kept copious notes on. More than half of those posts were made by the same urbanite who asked us to "...keep the debate in one place so he would have an easier time correcting us all...". Talk about elitism.

I don't know what you're talking about nor do I see your point....I'm just a guy who wants an opportunity to catch a freaking trout over 20" in more than just 10 bodies of water scattered across the whole province and I wanted to see what the general consensus was out there. Seems I'm not alone.


Alberta is known far and wide for the world-class trout fishery on the Bow downstream of Calgary, and for the big pike that are available almost anywhere.
Ummm... the only world class fisheries in this province are still world class because of 1 of 2 things:
1. They are remote and difficult to access = low fishing pressure
or
2. They have special regulations that limit harvest:
Trout - Bow river, Crow, Livingstone, North and South Ram, Prairie Creek, Oldman, etc, etc, etc.

Pike - the pike fishery in this province nearly collapsed because of over fishing. Walleye the same thing. Special regs had to be put in.

While Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and B.C. are trying to improve their fisheries, we let them get totally decimated before we do anything about them. If Alberta should be world-renowned for anything, it's for being reactive and not proactive when it comes to its fisheries.

You seem anti-regulations when it comes to stocked trout waters yet the world class fishing in Alberta only exists in places with special regs (or in isolation). You're contradicting yourself. Why can't we be known for a world class stillwater trout fishery (like Manitoba) as well?


Not good enough for you?
Nope, not even close. Less than 10 stocked waters with special regs out of 300 stocked lakes is not good enough for me and it doesn't look like it's good enough for the vast majority of the people that are voting on this poll.

You can not have an accessible trout stream or lake in this province consistently produce fish over 20" without special regs. Prove me wrong.


Go north young man. You are close enough to world class char family angling to make your argument moot to those of us that must drive more than three hours to get to a spot that is not overwhelmed with latter day anglers who fish because Rapala says they should purchase all 2765 varieties/colors of their crankbaits. And even that might not be far enough.

Free (to say no)
Sorry, you've lost me again... I don't know what you're talking about or what point you're trying to make. I'm slow... you might need to draw me a picture or something? Why am I driving North???

Cheers.

[HunterDave]

Did you sleep through the long winded debate between someone from S.E. Calgary (the fellow with the private perch pond sans the oil company sponsored trip to the north coast) and several other forum members concerning a certain family lake in the eastern Rockies and the desire to petition SRD for changes to the regulations there? I did not see your ideas floated during that debate.

You mean this one Freedom?

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=79247&highlight=kananaskis

Huntin'Fool, would you mind sharing how you went about lobbying for more quality fisheries? You can even just PM if you want (or maybe start a new thread???) but I would love to know what it takes to actually see change and not just talk about it.

Propose a resolution at your local Fish & Game club and if there is support for it they will take it to AFGA. If there is support for it at AFGA they will take it to SRD. I think that I mentioned it in the thread that I just posted the link for.

See, I'm not that heartless. :)

[HunterDave]

HunterDave, can you think of even 3 lakes (don't need to name them) out of the 300 stocked lakes that have:
1. a 5 fish limit
2. allow bait
3. are accessible (so within 100m of a road)
4. have some fishing pressure
that you can regularly (nearly every time you fish it) catch a trout larger than 20"?

You don't need 3 lakes, you only need one that will fit that criteria. Allot of the bigger bodies of water that don't have a winter kill hold big fish. They aren't easy to catch like the smaller ones, but they are there. Maybe you'll catch one once out of a hundred times fishing there but that's what makes it exciting for me. Now if you replace that with knowing that you are going to catch a whopper every cast then, to me anyway, something is lost.

As far as mentioning accessibility, I would class that under "making it easier". If you want big fish then it'll take a little effort. Plan a Spring fishing trip and come up north for a week (assuming that you are down south where I think you are). That's what we do and we have a great time. :)

I've fished all over Canada and it's no big secret that the best fishing is in bodies of water that don't have easy access and don't have allot of fishing pressure. IMO That's because other anglers don't want to make the extra effort or spend the extra on gas to get to them. If you want to catch bigger fish easier and more often then you have to go out and get them (off of the beaten path) not try to bring the fish to you.

[fishpro]

You don't need 3 lakes, you only need one that will fit that criteria. Allot of the bigger bodies of water that don't have a winter kill hold big fish. They aren't easy to catch like the smaller ones, but they are there. Maybe you'll catch one once out of a hundred times fishing there but that's what makes it exciting for me. Now if you replace that with knowing that you are going to catch a whopper every cast then, to me anyway, something is lost.

As far as mentioning accessibility, I would class that under "making it easier". If you want big fish then it'll take a little effort. Plan a Spring fishing trip and come up north for a week (assuming that you are down south where I think you are). That's what we do and we have a great time. :)

I've fished all over Canada and it's no big secret that the best fishing is in bodies of water that don't have easy access and don't have allot of fishing pressure. IMO That's because other anglers don't want to make the extra effort or spend the extra on gas to get to them. If you want to catch bigger fish easier and more often then you have to go out and get them (off of the beaten path) not try to bring the fish to you.

Yes the best fishing is where the access is tough, but that same type of fishing could easily be achieved where access is easy with the proper regulations.

Also, you say that it's better if you only catch a whopper every 100 times out. So right now in the average lake that winter kills the average fish is 10 inches and rarely you get a fish in the 20-24 inch range and that random catch is what makes it exciting. Do you not think it would be exciting to have fishing that average 20 inches on every other cast and then once in a while you pull in a 32 inch monster? Many of our stocked lakes could produce fish like that, why not try and reach the full potential of our fisheries?

[NorthernAbGuy]

What about a different spin on this idea? I travelled to Ontario last fall, and they have 2 different styles of fishing licences. One is the regular sportfishing licence, and the other is a conservation licence. There are different numbers of fish you are allowed to keep depending on the waterbody and the permit that you posess. The conservation licence is for the catch & release guy, and is a bit cheaper that the regular one. Just a thought.

[HunterDave]

Do you not think it would be exciting to have fishing that average 20 inches on every other cast and then once in a while you pull in a 32 inch monster?

No, I wouldn't find that exciting/challenging at all. Nor would I find filling a dugout full of big trout and throwing a line in to catch them. What I find exciting is going out fishing knowing that there are big fish in the lake but it will take time, patience and persistence to catch them. Making it easier actually makes it less exciting for me.

It might be the hunter in me but I think that a big part of fishing is the "thrill of the chase" so to speak with everything that leads up to actually hooking a fish. If it's a biggin' it makes it that much more exciting, but not when you already know that it's going to be a big one.

[Bigtoad]

You don't need 3 lakes, you only need one that will fit that criteria. Allot of the bigger bodies of water that don't have a winter kill hold big fish. They aren't easy to catch like the smaller ones, but they are there. Maybe you'll catch one once out of a hundred times fishing there but that's what makes it exciting for me. Now if you replace that with knowing that you are going to catch a whopper every cast then, to me anyway, something is lost.

As far as mentioning accessibility, I would class that under "making it easier". If you want big fish then it'll take a little effort. Plan a Spring fishing trip and come up north for a week (assuming that you are down south where I think you are). That's what we do and we have a great time. :)

I've fished all over Canada and it's no big secret that the best fishing is in bodies of water that don't have easy access and don't have allot of fishing pressure. IMO That's because other anglers don't want to make the extra effort or spend the extra on gas to get to them. If you want to catch bigger fish easier and more often then you have to go out and get them (off of the beaten path) not try to bring the fish to you.

I'm totally with you here. I love strapping on the backpack and wearing some rubber of the soles to find good spots. However, I couldn't say it better than FishPro:

"Yes the best fishing is where the access is tough, but that same type of fishing could easily be achieved where access is easy with the proper regulations."

They're doing it in the Manitoba Parkland, we've got to be able to do it here.

Cheers.

[whitetail Junkie]

When I go out fishing it's to catch big Fish and bring something home for the dinner Table,catch and release ONLY is out of the question !!!!

[fishpro]

No, I wouldn't find that exciting/challenging at all. Nor would I find filling a dugout full of big trout and throwing a line in to catch them. What I find exciting is going out fishing knowing that there are big fish in the lake but it will take time, patience and persistence to catch them. Making it easier actually makes it less exciting for me.

It might be the hunter in me but I think that a big part of fishing is the "thrill of the chase" so to speak with everything that leads up to actually hooking a fish. If it's a biggin' it makes it that much more exciting, but not when you already know that it's going to be a big one.

Are you saying that a 20 inch trout is a big fish? In my opinion, a 20 inch trout is nothing spectacular, a 30 inch trout is. These could be the big fish that give the thrill of the hunt.

[fishpro]

I will also say that I love hiking into lakes for the chance at quality fish and solitude. I just think it would be nice to have some easily accessible lakes to just drive to and be able to catch numerous larger fish. However, I find it equally fun to be challenged and experience the thrill of hunting down a large trout - we are lucky to have some great fisheries for this, namely our spring creeks that are inhabited by large wary brown trout.

What I'm trying to say is there are many different things that can provide fishermen with enjoyment, or even provide one person with enjoyment. It would be nice to have a balance in our fisheries management that allowed sufficient access to all styles of fisheries.

[huntin'fool]

.......What I'm trying to say is there are many different things that can provide fishermen with enjoyment, or even provide one person with enjoyment. It would be nice to have a balance in our fisheries management that allowed sufficient access to all styles of fisheries.

Reiterated exactly my point in perhaps a more comprehensive manner. Thanks Fishpro.

And to those wondering how to get things changed??? GET INVOLVED. Become a member of your local fish and game club. Bring your matter to the table, if there is local support, they will forward it to AFGA. It is AFGA's job to bring these matters forward to SRD. They are our voice. That is why there are liaison positions for AFGA/SRD.

I have spoken to our bio on a couple of occasions and he has told me of fisheries "of the past" that have now been replaced by the overstocked put and take lakes that we're now unfortunately accustomed to. These lakes haven't just disappeared, only they have been made to accomodate only the majority---why not have fisheries that accomodate everyone? Even just 10% of our stocked trout lakes...that would be suffice...no????

[Heron]

For the life of me I can not understand the resistance to delayed harvest and a slightly reduced retention.

These were my thoughts last time this came up...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 3-16” fish for retention and perhaps 10 more lakes at 1- 20” retention. Not very far down the road that will put a lot more fish of decent eating size in frying pans if that is where you want them to go. 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?

[HunterDave]

I think you misread the poll options. I was suggesting that if the limit was 3 fish of any size, that most fish in the lake would be less than 16". If you caught one bigger than that, you could still keep it. Heck, if you were lucky enough to catch 3 bigger than that, you could whack all 3!

So, if most of the fish in the lake are 16" or smaller then some of the fish must be bigger than 16".........:thinking-006:

In that case I'll change my vote from 3 - 16" fish to: "Limit of 5 any size with a good chance of fish over 12"." Assuming of course that the same applies to being able to catch fish bigger than 12" in that lake. If I'm hungry I'll catch a couple of 12" fish for the frying pan to eat right away. If not, I'll bring 5 bigger ones home to eat when I am hungry. :sHa_shakeshout:

[DuckBrat]

Huntin'Fool, would you mind sharing how you went about lobbying for more quality fisheries? You can even just PM if you want (or maybe start a new thread???) but I would love to know what it takes to actually see change and not just talk about it.




It takes work. First know your regs and study up on the area so that when you hit the next step you are knowledgeable and can make good points. When you have the info make the call to a local fisheries biologist ask relevant questions and make your point. Make a connection and make notes if your idea has legs this is the guy to get it going. Now take all the information you have gained and formulate a letter (and email) with the proposal. Address the letter to the minister of SRD, MLA for the area around the lake whose regs you are trying to change, your local MLA, the premiers office, and any applicable fisheries offices. Sell the idea with all the benefits from economics to environmental if your MLA can use your idea to look good feed off off that. It may take awhile for a response at this point but use this time to create a followup letter. Use the second letter to reiterate key points and bring up new info that will help your case. Start the phone calls from you and anyone who likes your idea. The more the wheel squeaks the more they will try and facilitate you. If possible this is where you try to make a connection and meet the people you are trying to convince visits to trade shows they are attending or drop by their office, you have to be persistent , patient, and charismatic. The bigger the following for your idea the better so if possible include media and communication specialists. It's not easy and you can expect the process to take about 7 months to up to 2 years. If your willing to take the time and effort these things can happen. You cannot let your initiatives slip under the carpet and if you feel they have it's time to send another letter and make another phone call. If you have made it to the end of this post then you may have what it takes to lobby for changes to our fisheries regulation. It can be done.

[Lazerloop]

Full out C&R !! or a 1 fish over 50cm like muir.
I would much rather go out fishing and catch some decent fish! Taking one or two while your out camping is good. But always limiting out on stocked trout gimme a break... If you want to eat fish go to the grocery store.

[HunterDave]

If you want to eat fish go to the grocery store.

And if you want pictures of yourself with big fish then install photoshop in your computer and learn how to use it! :sHa_sarcasticlol:

[Don Andersen]

It's kind simple guys.

Sask does it, Manitoba does it, BC does it, private pond operators do it, even the Natives @ Morley do it.
What is it - raise fish to 8 lbs. and yet our SRd folks seem unable to to the same.

Curiously, all the lakes where I live did have 8 lbs. fish in them. They don't now.

Forget the Quality Lake thing - every lake in the Rocky Area was once a Quality Lake as defined by the Policy. Not any more - even the touted Quality Lakes are now decimated.

WHY!!!


Don

[DuckBrat]

It's kind simple guys.
WHY!!!


Don

Transient workers from the east who don't realize what effect there angling population has on our limited fisheries?

[Bigtoad]

It's kind simple guys.

Sask does it, Manitoba does it, BC does it, private pond operators do it, even the Natives @ Morley do it.
What is it - raise fish to 8 lbs. and yet our SRd folks seem unable to to the same.

Curiously, all the lakes where I live did have 8 lbs. fish in them. They don't now.

Forget the Quality Lake thing - every lake in the Rocky Area was once a Quality Lake as defined by the Policy. Not any more - even the touted Quality Lakes are now decimated.

WHY!!!


Don

This is why I really like the idea of one fish UNDER 18" (or 16" or 20" or whatever) for lakes that are dubbed "quality". (Don't worry HunterDave you can still instantly gratify yourself with five 10" fish at hundreds of other stocked ponds around the province).

One under 18" allows some harvest of pan-sized fish for those that would like to keep one but it keeps the big boys in there. Catch it, take a picture and quick measurement, give it a big smooch, and send it on it's way. You don't have to kill it to have a replica made and if you hold it WAY out during the picture you can make it look even bigger!

SRD also have to limit how many fish they are putting in. It's ironic really; they are underfunded yet waste time and money dumping way too many fish into lakes. I don't get it. They need to do us, and themselves a favour and lighten up the stocking on every lake that has an aerator. They could also do us another favour and make C&R or one under 18" at any lake with an aerator as well. My guess is that would still be under 10% of the stocked lakes in Alberta and allow all 5 of the guys on this poll who voted for 5 fish to still be able to have all of the tiddlers they want.

Cheers.

[packhuntr]

Transient workers from the east who don't realize what effect there angling population has on our limited fisheries?

No, its called management. Currently this province manages for today, kill kill kill, cause anyone educated knows its renewable right! LOL So we watch as these people drop the ball, pick it up, drop it, and on and on. In the mean time issues that need money and desperately need attention, all the way from species at risk to ecological issues get dropped until they become world class wrecks. Then they become the new issue and work in progress gets dropped like a bad habit, and around and around we go! So yea, Im all for it, keep wasting money we dont have, on sh*t we dont need, like these disasterous water bodies we call fisheries in Alberta LOL. Its simple, change the regulations, sway away from extirpation and spend the money where it needs to be spent. Been so long since ive heard the word in this province I had to look up its spelling, con,ser,va,tion. Now to figure out what the heck it means... Oh, and thats my opinion, doesnt make it right, but just incase, Im gonna keep taking what I can while its here to be had, cause if ya cant beat em, may as well join em!

[Bigtoad]

So, if most of the fish in the lake are 16" or smaller then some of the fish must be bigger than 16".........:thinking-006:

In that case I'll change my vote from 3 - 16" fish to: "Limit of 5 any size with a good chance of fish over 12"." Assuming of course that the same applies to being able to catch fish bigger than 12" in that lake. If I'm hungry I'll catch a couple of 12" fish for the frying pan to eat right away. If not, I'll bring 5 bigger ones home to eat when I am hungry. :sHa_shakeshout:

Really? I feel like I'm watching The Colbert Report. Some of the stuff you say is so ludicrous it has to be sarcastic... you just can't be serious... can you??? I mean, you say some good stuff, and then you write this? I don't get it.

Ok, here's another question HunterDave:
You go to your bank and ask to take out $1000 from your account to buy some hunting gear that you've been looking at. The bank manager comes out and says to you, "If you wait and come back in 3 year, I will guarantee that your $1000 will grow to $3000 which you can then take out." Which do you take? Common sense would say to keep the money in there if you're getting that type of return.

By delaying the harvest of fish, we're all getting a huge return. One 18" fish is larger than three 10" and much more fun to catch. No?

Keeping 5 (or even 3) every time you go fishing seems really selfish to me. I'll keep one small-medium fish to eat but I won't keep a big one if I catch it. I don't because of the respect I have for the fish; that it was able to get big despite the fishing pressure, and because of the respect I have for the other fishermen that will be fishing there next.

If I bonk that big fish, that's the end of the story, but if I release it, someone else can catch it again and the story continues. If I bonk all of the 5 fish I am allowed, that is 5 fewer fish that could become bigger fish. Again, it seems selfish. I don't have the heart to do it and it makes my stomach churn when I see someone else do it because, to me, it's showing a lack of respect for the resource we have and a lack of respect to all of the other fishermen as well.

In New Zealand, there was a great sign at one of the rivers that said something to the effect, "Please, take only what you need so the resource will be here for everyone to enjoy." That was the only regulation on the stream; keep whatever you want, just no more than you need. I wondered how long there would still be fish in that stream if we tried that in Alberta... I thought maybe a week.:sign0176:

If all of us are bonking all of the fish we can and all of the big fish we can, we end up getting exactly what we've got = a fishery where 18" fish seems like monsters and SRD stocking 30,000 fish into a lake every year.

Or am I the crazy one? Discuss......

(As a side note, I've been really enjoying this discussion, and besides me calling HunterDave's ideas "ludicrous" I think it's been a good, civil discussion with many good points on both sides:))

Cheers.

[honda450]

Really? I feel like I'm watching The Colbert Report. Some of the stuff you say is so ludicrous it has to be sarcastic... you just can't be serious... can you??? I mean, you say some good stuff, and then you write this? I don't get it.

Ok, here's another question HunterDave:
You go to your bank and ask to take out $1000 from your account to buy some hunting gear that you've been looking at. The bank manager comes out and says to you, "If you wait and come back in 3 year, I will guarantee that your $1000 will grow to $3000 which you can then take out." Which do you take? Common sense would say to keep the money in there if you're getting that type of return.

By delaying the harvest of fish, we're all getting a huge return. One 18" fish is larger than three 10" and much more fun to catch. No?

Keeping 5 (or even 3) every time you go fishing seems really selfish to me. I'll keep one small-medium fish to eat but I won't keep a big one if I catch it. I don't because of the respect I have for the fish; that it was able to get big despite the fishing pressure, and because of the respect I have for the other fishermen that will be fishing there next.

If I bonk that big fish, that's the end of the story, but if I release it, someone else can catch it again and the story continues. If I bonk all of the 5 fish I am allowed, that is 5 fewer fish that could become bigger fish. Again, it seems selfish. I don't have the heart to do it and it makes my stomach churn when I see someone else do it because, to me, it's showing a lack of respect for the resource we have and a lack of respect to all of the other fishermen as well.

In New Zealand, there was a great sign at one of the rivers that said something to the effect, "Please, take only what you need so the resource will be here for everyone to enjoy." That was the only regulation on the stream; keep whatever you want, just no more than you need. I wondered how long there would still be fish in that stream if we tried that in Alberta... I thought maybe a week.:sign0176:

If all of us are bonking all of the fish we can and all of the big fish we can, we end up getting exactly what we've got = a fishery where 18" fish seems like monsters and SRD stocking 30,000 fish into a lake every year.

Or am I the crazy one? Discuss......

(As a side note, I've been really enjoying this discussion, and besides me calling HunterDave's ideas "ludicrous" I think it's been a good, civil discussion with many good points on both sides:))

Cheers.

Good post Bigtoad. Some people will never get it and feel they have been cheated by not coming home with there limit everytime they go fishing. Lived in Alberta all my life and since the population boom in the last 30 years fishing will never be like I knew it when I fished with my Dad and Grandpa.

I fly fish mostly creeks and rivers years ago I would never see a person all day, now its one after another. But it seems to me fly fisher men are a different breed, in fact all I know are all C & R, I am and all my buddys that come from the US to fly fish here in Alberta are. Sometimes I will catch 30 fish in a day, and my son as well but bring home nothing. Do I feel cheated? Nope.

[Gust]

Reiterated exactly my point in perhaps a more comprehensive manner. Thanks Fishpro.

And to those wondering how to get things changed??? GET INVOLVED. Become a member of your local fish and game club. Bring your matter to the table, if there is local support, they will forward it to AFGA. It is AFGA's job to bring these matters forward to SRD. They are our voice. That is why there are liaison positions for AFGA/SRD.

I have spoken to our bio on a couple of occasions and he has told me of fisheries "of the past" that have now been replaced by the overstocked put and take lakes that we're now unfortunately accustomed to. These lakes haven't just disappeared, only they have been made to accomodate only the majority---why not have fisheries that accomodate everyone? Even just 10% of our stocked trout lakes...that would be suffice...no????

My Dad likes the "put & take" lakes (he abhors Internet fishing and would neither know how nor want to post on here); his arguement is that these ponds relieve pressure off the more sensitive areas.

We're also both of the sort of fisherman who (as you said) "love the thrill of the chase" and when we don't catch, well it sure was beautiful out there today eh?

You could break down this thread into almost two category of fisherfolk,, ones wanting an instant gratification and those just fine with being on the water. I've had fishermen asking if they could have the fish I'm releasing, illegal for one start and then I'm wondering why they are fishing at all? (rhet) Obviously not for the charm of experiencing what a lot of people around the world don't have, an opportunity to be in some spectacular nature at the drop of a hat and that includes the Prairies.

Back to the dinkers,,, in mid-summer we go knowing that we are going to get nothing but pan-frys and we have a hibatchi ready to fry a few. My Dad can't hike up Sandy McNab anymore, even rocky shores are a major obstacle for him now,, so the dinker lakes are, if you notice, lined with seniors and kids. We reminice on fishing days gone by and the kids are skipping rocks by mid-afternoon, and we get out of the city.

[huntin'fool]

...BUT that's just me - there are plenty of people out there who would be tickled pink to be able to catch 30-40 dinkers in an outing. I believe the gov't needs to accomodate the public in a broader fashion, not have to go and create our own freakin' lakes.

These lakes are very accesible to the general public and will cater the the vast majority of folks who enjoy catching lots of small trout. Perfect - both sides win.




I hope, Gustav, that you think I was insinuating that I want all put and take lakes gone. NO way - I have kids, nieces/nephews; In fact I have alot of friends and family who aren't regular anglers whom I take down to these types of lakes to catch some fish/expose them to angling/nature...etc.

I just don't fish these lakes for myself as catching these types of fish brings me no enjoyment. But, I do utilize these lakes for my above reasons, and; therefore, am grateful for these dinker lakes as well.

The main issue here is "the need to create some diversity in our stocking program in order to cater to all Albertans". I realize you can't please everyone, but I do know that we could make some changes to please more than just the current "putandtake majority".

Again, great discussion everyone. I like this one!!

[Gust]

I hope, Gustav, that you think I was insinuating that I want all put and take lakes gone. NO way - I have kids, nieces/nephews; In fact I have alot of friends and family who aren't regular anglers whom I take down to these types of lakes to catch some fish/expose them to angling/nature...etc.

I just don't fish these lakes for myself as catching these types of fish brings me no enjoyment. But, I do utilize these lakes for my above reasons, and; therefore, am grateful for these dinker lakes as well.

The main issue here is "the need to create some diversity in our stocking program in order to cater to all Albertans". I realize you can't please everyone, but I do know that we could make some changes to please more than just the current "putandtake majority".

Again, great discussion everyone. I like this one!!

No no at all, I didn't get your posts as anything negative,, I was hoping you understood me as a similar thinking fisherman.

There is a wide array of why people fish; I'm from the side that I'm happy to still get to fish (with my Dad and he with his Grandkids) or snooze on a riverbank all the live long day. If he was sprite he could easily guide people on where the big ones are but those spots will go to the grave with him. His answers are the same "They're out there, you'll find them!"

We were talking last night about fish management and we always come round to coldwater lakes/streams and the growth rate of those fish to fish in warmer lakes/streams. It's an important issue especially with broad-ranging regulations.

I'm opposed to heli-charters into mountaintop lakes,,, the accessibility or lack thereof is the conservation method. But that's a whole nother thread.

[HunterDave]

Forget the Quality Lake thing - every lake in the Rocky Area was once a Quality Lake as defined by the Policy. Not any more - even the touted Quality Lakes are now decimated.

WHY!!!


Don

IMHO it has everything to do with the attitudes of the anglers and SRD in Alberta. Allot of anglers here only want to only catch and eat/release big fish (case in point this thread!) and the SRD regs, which I have a hard time understanding the logic, made it law to only keep the large fish by making it illegal to keep a fish under a certain size.

To me, it make sense that if you only keep the large fish with the fishing pressure in Alberta (anglers to bodies of water) you are going to eventually decimate your fishing waters! This is not rocket dentistry here. :confused0024:

[huntin'fool]

IMHO it has everything to do with the attitudes of the anglers and SRD in Alberta. Allot of anglers here only want to only catch and eat/release big fish (case in point this thread!) and the SRD regs, which I have a hard time understanding the logic, made it law to only keep the large fish by making it illegal to keep a fish under a certain size.

To me, it make sense that if you only keep the large fish with the fishing pressure in Alberta (anglers to bodies of water) you are going to eventually decimate your fishing waters! This is not rocket dentistry here. :confused0024:

Well, Dave, I know what you're trying to convey...However, we must remember that these fish are stocked on a yearly basis. It is not as if we are decimating the large breeding population of native walleye or pike for example. We are simply waiting for the trout (which do not reproduce in these lakes) to get bigger. All anglers like big fish, plain and simple. Delayed harvest and reduced stocking rates will never decimate a "stocked" stillwater trout fishery in Alberta. There will always be smaller fish...the ones that get stocked every year.

[HunterDave]

Keeping 5 (or even 3) every time you go fishing seems really selfish to me. I'll keep one small-medium fish to eat but I won't keep a big one if I catch it. I don't because of the respect I have for the fish; that it was able to get big despite the fishing pressure, and because of the respect I have for the other fishermen that will be fishing there next.

In New Zealand, there was a great sign at one of the rivers that said something to the effect, "Please, take only what you need so the resource will be here for everyone to enjoy." That was the only regulation on the stream; keep whatever you want, just no more than you need. I wondered how long there would still be fish in that stream if we tried that in Alberta... I thought maybe a week.:sign0176:

Or am I the crazy one? Discuss......

Cheers.

Yeah, you're crazy. :sHa_sarcasticlol:

Ya see you don't understand the concept. You go out once and catch five fish to eat and when you have eaten them you go out and catch five more. Unethical? If you go out fishing one time and keep 5 smaller fish to eat how many more fish are you taking out of the lake by going 5 times and keeping one fish? :confused: Unless of course you are thinking about someone that disregards the possession limits in the regs which I don't do. :innocent:

I think that the sign in New Zealand is good and I have the same mentality. From a very early age I was taught to only "take what you need and leave the rest". That is the moral that I have lived by my entire life whether it is hunting or fishing. Why take more than you need, possession limits aside? So you can kill the animal/fish and let it freezer burn in your freezer? I'll even take it one step farther in that I was taught to keep the smaller "eatin' sized fish and release the larger "breeding" sized fish. Make sense? :huh: And just cuz the fish can't breed in a particular body of water doesn't make it right IMHO.

Now stop letting your imagination run wild on you and stop putting words in my mouth. :2mo5pow: :lol:

[HunterDave]

There will always be smaller fish...the ones that get stocked every year.

Yeah, the proposal is that you just can't eat them. :)

[HunterDave]

Lived in Alberta all my life and since the population boom in the last 30 years fishing will never be like I knew it when I fished with my Dad and Grandpa.

Sometimes I will catch 30 fish in a day, and my son as well but bring home nothing. Do I feel cheated? Nope.

If you and your son catch 60 fish in a day now how many were you catching with your Dad and Grandpa? :sign0068:

Where exactly are you catching those 30 fish per day? I'll take 5 eater sized please! I don't want any big ones cuz they don't taste as good. :sHa_sarcasticlol:

[Bigtoad]

Yeah, you're crazy. :sHa_sarcasticlol:

Ya see you don't understand the concept. You go out once and catch five fish to eat and when you have eaten them you go out and catch five more. Unethical? If you go out fishing one time and keep 5 smaller fish to eat how many more fish are you taking out of the lake by going 5 times and keeping one fish? :confused: Unless of course you are thinking about someone that disregards the possession limits in the regs which I don't do. :innocent:

I think that the sign in New Zealand is good and I have the same mentality. From a very early age I was taught to only "take what you need and leave the rest". That is the moral that I have lived by my entire life whether it is hunting or fishing. Why take more than you need, possession limits aside? So you can kill the animal/fish and let it freezer burn in your freezer? I'll even take it one step farther in that I was taught to keep the smaller "eatin' sized fish and release the larger "breeding" sized fish. Make sense? :huh: And just cuz the fish can't breed in a particular body of water doesn't make it right IMHO.

Now stop letting your imagination run wild on you and stop putting words in my mouth. :2mo5pow: :lol:

See, now that sounds much less ludicrous. I can live with this. Your other post made it sound like you always keep your limit and go frequently... taking as many fish as possible as often as possible.

Too bad...I liked you better when I thought you were crazy. :)

Cheers.

[HunterDave]

See, now that sounds much less ludicrous. I can live with this. Your other post made it sound like you always keep your limit and go frequently... taking as many fish as possible as often as possible.

Too bad...I liked you better when I thought you were crazy. :)

Cheers.

You want crazy? I'll show you frickin crazy............:2mo5pow: :sHa_sarcasticlol:

Okay, hunting is my forte but fishing, trapping, camping, etc are all part of the enjoyment that I have of the outdoors. Here's how I see this whole "Quality" fishery issue from a hunting perspective:

For me, creating a "quality" fishery in a lake is similar to having canned hunts where only big animals are kept in SRD funded fenced areas. In the case of fish, the shoreline would be the fence. You could scatter these game farms around the cities in order to satisfy the shooters that wanted to shoot "easy to shoot" big game animals with minimal effort. :)

I haven't quite figured out the C&R part yet but here's what I'm thinking....In order to sustain a "quality" shootery, the same rules as C&R would need to be applied. Tranquilizer guns would need to be used in order to give serious shooters an opportunity to get a picture with their animal. They could get replicas made from the photo/measurements and put it in their living room. This should satisfy everyone that would be happy with shooting a big animal but shoot and release only (S&R) only. :happy0034:

As for the non S&R shooters (let's call them hunters) that would like to keep one or more animals to eat, then they would have to go to any of the crown land areas, or private property that they own or have permission to hunt on. These areas are not limited to only shooting smaller animals and there is an opportunity for hunters to shoot a big animal too (just not as easy). :mad0100:

There would be another alternative to having SRD funded game farms though and it would be a cheaper option. Select and designate WMU's, or parts of them, in close proximity to cities and put size restrictions on the animals that you are allowed to shoot. Let's say deer for example. You'd only be able to shoot bucks with 5x5 or bigger antlers in these areas. This way, after a few years, the bucks would have the chance to grow bigger and there would always be a good supply of 5x5 or bigger deer to shoot with the chance of bagging a 6x6 whopper.:sign0068:

So ya see, I have it all figured out. :acigar: From a hunting perspective "quality" fisheries = canned hunts. ;)

[Sundancefisher]

Did you sleep through the long winded debate between someone from S.E. Calgary (the fellow with the private perch pond sans the oil company sponsored trip to the north coast) and several other forum members concerning a certain family lake in the eastern Rockies and the desire to petition SRD for changes to the regulations there? I did not see your ideas floated during that debate.

At first, and until I looked you up, I thought you were him singing the same song with a different title.

Shucks...geeee whizzz. I am touched. It feels great to have someone thinking about me so much.:thinking-006:

Still...bringing a perch to a simple discussion about trout...not unusual for you:angry3:. Also you missed the previous many posts around that I would love to find this oil company sponsored trip you keep ranting about:snapoutofit:. In fact the trips I organize are 100% funded by the individual going. Any of you reading this could come on the exact same trip for the exact same price. I know you have a festering boil in your belly that anyone in the oil patch is elitist...problem with your theory is 145500 people work their butts off in the Alberta oil patch in some fashion or another.
Spin off jobs increase that dramatically.

So...please cancel your anger with common sense...stick to the interesting debates...and hey...if you don't like the debate...exercise your right to not click on the link...:sHa_sarcasticlol:

[Sundancefisher]

What this shows us is that there is a wealth of opinions and desires amongst our fine fishing brothers and sisters. If we continue to use the family analogy...then we should be considering the finer points of sharing and compromise. That means we are not making every pond catch and release, not making every pond 5 - 9 inchers a day, not making every pond 1 under 18 inches etc.

There is a market for many different fishery types and no one group should have a monopoly nor live in the dark ages. While many people obviously like to catch something...anything...and as such want as many fish in the barrel in which to enjoy a day of hopefully catching...others are fine with stocking once or twice a year and harvesting the lake out within weeks thereof.

To each there own and I certainly would not support changing every lake to only one management style/type...simply because to be fair not everyone wants what I want.

I believe some paranoia exists in which people this is a plot to make everything catch and release. That is not possible as that user group would not be happy. The reason some lakes (only a few so far) have been made into a quality lake and public out cry was fairly week was because Bullshead proved it works and because there are so many options to fish put and take lakes that they just don't have the energy to fight a fair compromise...not to mention that not all lakes are suitable for that regulation.

So in the end...let's fight less and just fish in the other person's waders for a while. Is compromise and sharing a bad thing?

Cheers

Sun

[Sundancefisher]

So ya see, I have it all figured out. :acigar: From a hunting perspective "quality" fisheries = canned hunts. ;)

Stocked lakes are canned hunts... The problem with using a hunting analogy for fishing is that your can't hunt and release. You can fish and release. That totally changes the management dynamic. If everyone could shot the same trophy buck each year...then let the trophy buck get a larger and larger rack...you don't think catch and release hunting would take off for those not interested in the meat?

[chubbdarter]

What this shows us is that there is a wealth of opinions and desires amongst our fine fishing brothers and sisters. If we continue to use the family analogy...then we should be considering the finer points of sharing and compromise. That means we are not making every pond catch and release, not making every pond 5 - 9 inchers a day, not making every pond 1 under 18 inches etc.

There is a market for many different fishery types and no one group should have a monopoly nor live in the dark ages. While many people obviously like to catch something...anything...and as such want as many fish in the barrel in which to enjoy a day of hopefully catching...others are fine with stocking once or twice a year and harvesting the lake out within weeks thereof.

To each there own and I certainly would not support changing every lake to only one management style/type...simply because to be fair not everyone wants what I want.

I believe some paranoia exists in which people this is a plot to make everything catch and release. That is not possible as that user group would not be happy. The reason some lakes (only a few so far) have been made into a quality lake and public out cry was fairly week was because Bullshead proved it works and because there are so many options to fish put and take lakes that they just don't have the energy to fight a fair compromise...not to mention that not all lakes are suitable for that regulation.

So in the end...let's fight less and just fish in the other person's waders for a while. Is compromise and sharing a bad thing?

Cheers

Sun

hey Sun...nice to see you posting and thats totally sincere
Good post....i agree. Im all for it as long as it doesnt become a blanket policy for alot of lakes.

[Sundancefisher]

hey Sun...nice to see you posting and thats totally sincere
Good post....i agree. Im all for it as long as it doesnt become a blanket policy for alot of lakes.

Thanks... I think the poll is interesting. Out of 122 votes...only 5 (4 %) want to catch and harvest lots of small fish (5 a day). In general the implication seems to suggest that most people want to catch more fish...which implies they don't see the 5 fish limits working where they are currently used.

28 or 23 % want 3 or 5 fish to harvest at a shot. 94 or 77% want 1 or fewer with 53 or 43% wanting no harvest at all.

I am in fact amazed at this poll...I would of expected a higher number of people wanting to concentrate on maximizing harvest versus maximizing recreational value of just "catching" more fish.

I think one still needs to look at the question and extrapolate that people are being greedy in their selection of answer insofar as "their favorite lake" is concerned. If someone has easy or regular access to a lake...you are more likely to be protective of the fishery and your personal opportunity to "catch" fish. If the question was...if you were just passing by on holidays and found a nice lake which you are unlikely to fish ever again...would you want to...harvest 5, 3, 1 or none. I suspect the answer may swing to an increased harvest since the individual would not have any personal connection to the lake nor any concern about the lake being fished out as they would likely not fish it again.

Interesting mix of sociology and fisheries management.

My analysis is purely a guess on my part.

[DuckBrat]

Quality over Quantity in a better selection of our ponds, please.

Great locations for this type of management: Dolberg, Peanut, Star, Miller, Sauer, Carson, Dollar, Spring (Spirit River and Edmonton), Ashland Dam, Kinky, Dickson Dam, Mary Gregg, Phyllis, Vegreville pond, Strubel, Crimson, Goldeye, Beauvais, Police Outpost, Chain, Tyrell, Blood indian, Beaver Mines.

Great water all capable of producing 30+ inchers. Feel free to add to the list.

[honda450]

If you and your son catch 60 fish in a day now how many were you catching with your Dad and Grandpa? :sign0068:

Where exactly are you catching those 30 fish per day? I'll take 5 eater sized please! I don't want any big ones cuz they don't taste as good. :sHa_sarcasticlol:

We probably caught the same numbers back then , just bigger fish.

Ya wouldn't like fishing there anyhow. Possession limit is 2. Bait ban. And ya gotta fly fish.

I do have a fellow forum member who is going to join me this summer, but he ain't tellin nothing either:sHa_sarcasticlol: But he is a C & R guy too.:acigar:

Dang we are going to have alot of fly fisherman in our camp this year. Fishing bout 10-15 different rivers and streams.:sHa_shakeshout:

[Don Andersen]

Transient workers from the east who don't realize what effect there angling population has on our limited fisheries?

Duckbrat,

As far as I know, nearly all of the SRD staff were born in Alberta.

If you are pointing @ me - poor choice - family was in Alberta before it was Alberta.


Don

[DuckBrat]

I was not referring to SRD staff or to yourself (so much meaning is lost when posting on the net), just pointing a finger at a percentage of a certain demographic that has shown little respect for the fishery in Alberta. With that said I realize their are others to blame as well but the population explosion in the NE has really killed quality fisheries we once had. We are not blessed with the Grand Banks in Alberta, oh wait that fishery went to hell too. Slightly inflammatory remarks I realize but I call em as I see em'. It's about respect for the land on which you live, that seems to elude a lot of folk.

Take, Take, Take before it's all gone is a pretty sad excuse for living irresponsibly.

[HunterDave]

We probably caught the same numbers back then , just bigger fish.

I'm willing to bet that the regs at the time that you were fishing with your Dad was possession limit of 2 any size or restricted to keeping only fish bigger than a certain size. Wouldn't that explain the disappearance of the larger sized fish?

That's what I'm talking about. The general attitude of keeping the larger fish over the smaller eatin' size if you want something to eat.

[goldscud]

The problem with taking the smaller fish is that essentially none are left to get over 20". Commonly there are very few fish over 16" in lakes with a 5 fish/no size limit. You can see it at Bullshead. Any fish approaching 20" is bonked on the head and removed. No matter what the legal size limit is, a huge majority of the fish that reach that size are removed. The number of fish that escape the freezer to remain as "quality" trout is very low.

[HunterDave]

The problem with taking the smaller fish is that essentially none are left to get over 20". Commonly there are very few fish over 16" in lakes with a 5 fish/no size limit. You can see it at Bullshead. Any fish approaching 20" is bonked on the head and removed. No matter what the legal size limit is, a huge majority of the fish that reach that size are removed. The number of fish that escape the freezer to remain as "quality" trout is very low.

Good point Goldscud. But what if you made the regs read 5 fish with a maximum size of 16". The fish that are left in the lake and make it past the legal keep size of +16" stay in the lake until they die of natural causes. Over time, there would be more and more big fish in the lake to catch.

The anglers, like me or people with kids, that like to go out and catch some smaller fish to keep and eat are happy and the trophy anglers that just want to catch a big fish to take a picture of should be happy. Everyone wins and no one has to give up anything! :sHa_shakeshout:

The only people that I can see as not being happy are the anglers that want easy to catch and keep big fish. To them I say.....Too bad! :tongue2: If you want easy then join the Marines and if you want to eat big fish then go to the fish market! Smaller sized fish taste better anyway! :)

I know that I'm joking around a bit and my thinking is totally outside the box from what goes on in Alberta right now, but, really, does any of what I'm posting make sense to anyone? :confused0024: It's just an idea but great plans are developed from the smallest of ideas.

[fishpro]

Good point Goldscud. But what if you made the regs read 5 fish with a maximum size of 16". The fish that are left in the lake and make it past the legal keep size of +16" stay in the lake until they die of natural causes. Over time, there would be more and more big fish in the lake to catch.

The anglers, like me or people with kids, that like to go out and catch some smaller fish to keep and eat are happy and the trophy anglers that just want to catch a big fish to take a picture of should be happy. Everyone wins and no one has to give up anything! :sHa_shakeshout:

The only people that I can see as not being happy are the anglers that want easy to catch and keep big fish. To them I say.....Too bad! :tongue2: If you want easy then join the Marines and if you want to eat big fish then go to the fish market! Smaller sized fish taste better anyway! :)

I know that I'm joking around a bit and my thinking is totally outside the box from what goes on in Alberta right now, but, really, does any of what I'm posting make sense to anyone? :confused0024: It's just an idea but great plans are developed from the smallest of ideas.

I totally understand your point here, but I think that it wouldn't work in a lot of lakes. The simple reason is that if we allowed 5 fish under 16 inches to be kept, VERY few fish would make it to such a size. The fishing pressure it too heavy on a lot of lakes and ponds (including those that overwinter) to allow decent numbers of fish to grow for long enough to reach such a size. I do realize there are exceptions to this, but I think that many of our waters have too much pressure for this to work.

[HunterDave]

I totally understand your point here, but I think that it wouldn't work in a lot of lakes. The simple reason is that if we allowed 5 fish under 16 inches to be kept, VERY few fish would make it to such a size. The fishing pressure it too heavy on a lot of lakes and ponds (including those that overwinter) to allow decent numbers of fish to grow for long enough to reach such a size. I do realize there are exceptions to this, but I think that many of our waters have too much pressure for this to work.

Yeah, agreed, but isn't the proposal for more lakes being classed as "quality" fisheries and not ALL lakes becoming "quality" fisheries? It doesn't have to work in allot of lakes, just a few more to satisfy the "quality" fishery anglers. So what's the problem? :confused0024: Are the lakes where it's feasible for such a plan too far from the city or is it that it wouldn't be easy enough to catch bigger fish? :confused:

[huntin'fool]

Good point Goldscud. But what if you made the regs read 5 fish with a maximum size of 16". The fish that are left in the lake and make it past the legal keep size of +16" stay in the lake until they die of natural causes. Over time, there would be more and more big fish in the lake to catch.


Sorry Dave, this simply makes no more sense than a five fish limit any size...which is what we have now!!
Fish would be cropped off before they ever reach 16". I was talking to one of the fish cops or whatever he was, at Kinky lake in Hinton. They netted the lake a couple of times this spring and did some mark/recapture study and the biggest fish they caught in their nets was 16.3 inches. He said that one was unfortunately an anomaly. So that is very evident proof that your theory just wont work. By the time these fish reach 14", duffy has already been out to the lake to crop them off.

By the way, Kinky Lake has not winterkilled for the last 3 or 4 years (at least 3).

So, would someone like me (and I'm not the only one) who wants to feel a quality fish on the end of my line go to a lake and fish for the half dozen or so "anomaly" fish?? Probably not. We just want some diversity, we don't want to eliminate all put and take 5 fish limit lakes.

[fishpro]

Yeah, agreed, but isn't the proposal for more lakes being classed as "quality" fisheries and not ALL lakes becoming "quality" fisheries? It doesn't have to work in allot of lakes, just a few more to satisfy the "quality" fishery anglers. So what's the problem? :confused0024: Are the lakes where it's feasible for such a plan too far from the city or is it that it wouldn't be easy enough to catch bigger fish? :confused:

I agree, it would only have to be done in a few lakes. But still, such regulations would likely not allow lakes to reach their full potential. That's why many of us suggest lowering the limits as well as implementing a higher minimum size limit.

If it's only done in a few lakes I don't understand why there is such an outcry over the suggestion of changing regulations on those lakes. There will still be many, many lakes that are unchanged.

[huntin'fool]

As a side note...as much as I disagree with the national park's fishing regs and management....they have some really good quality trout fishing....so maybe there is something to say for a 2 fish any size limit.

[Sundancefisher]

As a side note...as much as I disagree with the national park's fishing regs and management....they have some really good quality trout fishing....so maybe there is something to say for a 2 fish any size limit.

A lot of that has to do with distance from major cities and therefore a lack of angler effort. In the last 30 years...the National Parks have done a great job of discouraging fishing.

Any proposal to make a lake 5 fish under 16 inches would never work...if there is any significant fishing pressure...plus to keep the masses happy and catching their 5 fish you need heavy stocking rates. That alone would keep the size well below 16 inches...and fishing pressure would certainly remove the majority. The rare one over 16 inches would not make in itself a side fishery option as to catch one would be like winning the lottery. Chain Lakes is an example of an over stocked fishery designed for the masses to catch their 5 fish a day. Very few get large enough for anglers to catch with any regularity. Making it 1 under 16 inches may work or even 2 a day...but that would be dictated by fishing pressure and study.

Lakes like Maclean Pond, Allen Bill and Mount Lorette Ponds are all simple examples of a 5 fish limit where ALL fish get removed within weeks of stocking. Not sure how a 5 fish limit could improve fishing or allow for any larger fish to survive. What would work would be to stock in the Spring...then again in the Summer. Make the limit 1 a day under 16 inches...then in Sept or Oct change the limit to 5 a day. Fish get removed...but at least more remain during the peak fishing time.

Still...nothing stops HunterDave from proposing an outside the box regulation and giving it a try. It is just that 5 a day has already proven not to work...so a new and fresh idea is required for consideration.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Yeah, agreed, but isn't the proposal for more lakes being classed as "quality" fisheries and not ALL lakes becoming "quality" fisheries? It doesn't have to work in allot of lakes, just a few more to satisfy the "quality" fishery anglers. So what's the problem? Are the lakes where it's feasible for such a plan too far from the city or is it that it wouldn't be easy enough to catch bigger fish?

I agree, it would only have to be done in a few lakes. But still, such regulations would likely not allow lakes to reach their full potential. That's why many of us suggest lowering the limits as well as implementing a higher minimum size limit.

If it's only done in a few lakes I don't understand why there is such an outcry over the suggestion of changing regulations on those lakes. There will still be many, many lakes that are unchanged.

Agreed...so it all goes back to sharing and compromise. Is there a problem with creating a variety of fisheries for everyone and not just picking one group to follow? Why not some 5 fish a day lakes, some quality lakes, some 1 under 16 lakes, some 1 over 16 lakes, some 5 a day lakes in Sept/Oct but only 1 during Nov to Aug, etc. We know the old way does not work. We know people want something better. We know from experience what new ideas are working.

Let's just agree to learn and improve and not ignore each other and our desire for what a great fishery means to each of us.

[HunterDave]

I agree, it would only have to be done in a few lakes. But still, such regulations would likely not allow lakes to reach their full potential. That's why many of us suggest lowering the limits as well as implementing a higher minimum size limit.

If it's only done in a few lakes I don't understand why there is such an outcry over the suggestion of changing regulations on those lakes. There will still be many, many lakes that are unchanged.

You're changing the ideology now. The discussion was about making it easier for trophy anglers to catch bigger fish and not growing fish to their full potential in a given lake............as best I can figure it out. If you want to put restrictions on one type of angler in order to achieve your goal then, of course, you'll meet resistance. However, if you want to meet your goal and you are willing to make concessions then the idea that I presented to you makes allot of sense IMHO.

If you are not willing to make concessions, then why in hell would someone want to give you something of theirs that they already have? Think about it for a minute. Why would your way be better than mine and why should I give up what I have so you can get what you want?

[Sundancefisher]

You're changing the ideology now. The discussion was about making it easier for trophy anglers to catch bigger fish and not growing fish to their full potential in a given lake............as best I can figure it out. If you want to put restrictions on one type of angler in order to achieve your goal then, of course, you'll meet resistance. However, if you want to meet your goal and you are willing to make concessions then the idea that I presented to you makes allot of sense IMHO.

If you are not willing to make concessions, then why in hell would someone want to give you something of theirs that they already have? Think about it for a minute. Why would your way be better than mine and why should I give up what I have so you can get what you want?

I think the confusion lies in your definition of "trophy".

Your sense of ownership of the stocked trout or native fish seems a little odd. The fish belong to all Albertans equally I would think. How to spread them around fairly would seem to make sense. Self entitlement is a form of greed that is deep seated and misguided IMHO.

[HunterDave]

I think the confusion lies in your definition of "trophy".

Your sense of ownership of the stocked trout or native fish seems a little odd. The fish belong to all Albertans equally I would think. How to spread them around fairly would seem to make sense. Self entitlement is a form of greed that is deep seated and misguided IMHO.

It's only greed if you have enough but want more than you already have.

[fishpro]

You're changing the ideology now. The discussion was about making it easier for trophy anglers to catch bigger fish and not growing fish to their full potential in a given lake............as best I can figure it out. If you want to put restrictions on one type of angler in order to achieve your goal then, of course, you'll meet resistance. However, if you want to meet your goal and you are willing to make concessions then the idea that I presented to you makes allot of sense IMHO.

If you are not willing to make concessions, then why in hell would someone want to give you something of theirs that they already have? Think about it for a minute. Why would your way be better than mine and why should I give up what I have so you can get what you want?

Yes, but is the resistance justified? We want a few lakes changed for our sake, people like you want EVERYTHING kept the same for your sake. Maybe you haven't said this word for word, but it has been clearly implied in your past posts.

Furthermore, have the presented arguments against your idea even registered to you? If your idea was implemented it would not be as successful as possible.

Why not try to find a province-wide plan that can provide different lakes that cater to everyone, rather than just the whack and stack crowd and have everyone else just put up with what they can get?

[fishpro]

I don't think anyone is asking for too much, or even so much to justify strong opposition if they were to request that 10% of our trout fisheries are managed for large fish (either 1 allowed over a certain size or completely catch and release), while leaving the other 90% of the fisheries with a limit of 5 per person. I think this is more than a reasonable request. Can you please tell me why you think this is such a bad idea?

[Sundancefisher]

It's only greed if you have enough but want more than you already have.

You don't consider it greed if your idea of enough means a disproportionate amount going to you when there is not enough for everyone to have an equal share?

If there is not enough fish in a lake for everyone to get 5 a day...what do you call it when someone demands to keep taking 5?

[HunterDave]

Let's face the facts here...........you guys want to make it easier for you to catch bigger fish. Well, it'd be great (or not) to be able to throw a line in every puddle on the road and pull out a +30 lb trout but after you do it 100 times or so, what's it going to take to get you off? Fish only grow so big! Go out and wet a line! If you catch something good. If not, enjoy your day of FISHING, as opposed to CATCHING! I'm sure that if you had your way you'd be able to walk across the backs of the trout to get to the other side of the lake. Where's the challenge for goodness sakes? Leave the rod at home and just dip a net in the water and pull up a couple of 30+ lbers. :confused0024:

[Sundancefisher]

Let's face the facts here...........you guys want to make it easier for you to catch bigger fish. Well, it'd be great (or not) to be able to throw a line in every puddle on the road and pull out a +30 lb trout but after you do it 100 times or so, what's it going to take to get you off? Fish only grow so big! Go out and wet a line! If you catch something good. If not, enjoy your day of FISHING, as opposed to CATCHING! I'm sure that if you had your way you'd be able to walk across the backs of the trout to get to the other side of the lake. Where's the challenge for goodness sakes? Leave the rod at home and just dip a net in the water and pull up a couple of 30+ lbers. :confused0024:

Do you consider it greed if your idea of enough means a disproportionate amount going to you when there is not enough for everyone to have an equal share?

If there is not enough fish in a lake for everyone to get 5 a day...what do you call it when someone demands to keep taking 5?

Is it wrong to balance all the user choices out there rather than just cater to one group?

No one but you is assuming we want a mono-regulation. Most people are just simply asking for options.

Please answer the questions HunterDave... It will determine whether or not I can debate with you and provides some important insights into your point of view.

Thanks

Sun

P.S. Two last questions... Is it a challenge to catch a fish if none are left to catch? Or is it just a wasted effort?

[HunterDave]

Do you consider it greed if your idea of enough means a disproportionate amount going to you when there is not enough for everyone to have an equal share?

If there is not enough fish in a lake for everyone to get 5 a day...what do you call it when someone demands to keep taking 5?

Is it wrong to balance all the user choices out there rather than just cater to one group?

No one but you is assuming we want a mono-regulation. Most people are just simply asking for options.

Please answer the questions HunterDave... It will determine whether or not I can debate with you and provides some important insights into your point of view.

Thanks

Sun

P.S. Two last questions... Is it a challenge to catch a fish if none are left to catch? Or is it just a wasted effort?

First of all let me say this..............:tongue2:

Secondly, you ask away too many questions all at once.........sheeesh. Slow down and take a breath man. Do you think that firing all these questions at me all at once is going to make me crack or sumthin'? :sHa_sarcasticlol:

Taking 5 fish to eat is not disproportionate IMO. Unless of course, you're eating fish for breakfast, lunch and supper. In which case you are catching fish just to eat and I have no problem with that. I wouldn't consider that greed, I'd consider that survival.

I can't remember the rest of the questions so they probably aren't worthy of comment.

You city boys really crack me up. Always trying to think of ways to make things easier for yourselves. :)

[SNAPFisher]

You need to change your name to FishingDave if you want us to take you seriously :lol:

Dave, not seeing that anyone here is saying that 5 is too much. Simply that have a 5 take lake but also offer a choice of quality fisheries that are managed differently (low or no limits, low stocking, aeration, etc.). So put simply back, would you like a choice of both kinds of fisheries in Alberta?

P.S. I can tell you that Muir lake up near Deadmonton has made a huge difference to a lot of anglers that were looking for another choice of quality.

[Bigtoad]

Always trying to think of ways to make things easier for yourselves. :)

As I've already said HunterDave, it's not about it being easier, it's about it being possible and there is a big difference. I'm still waiting for the list of 3 lakes that it is possible to catch a 20"+ fish on a regular basis. I say "regular" basis because I don't want any "anomalies". "I once caught a 21" rainbow out of lake x back in 1980," doesn't count. Out of 300 stocked lakes in Alberta, if the fishery was anything better than mediocre, it should be easy to list 25 - 50 of such lakes.

I grew up on my grandpa's farm and he stocked fish in a dugout every year that winterkilled. He put 10-12" in the spring and by fall they were well over 16" and many over 18". That's in one year! I realize that not all lakes have the capacity to grow fish that big, that quick (especially when SRD overstocks the %*^* out of them) but it shouldn't be that hard to raise fish to a descent size.

There is a quote that says something like, "Good is what stops us from getting to great." I think you, and many people in Alberta, believe that the fishery is "good." I, and many others would disagree with you that it is mediocre to poor at best. Regardless of where you see the fishery and where I see the fishery, the fact is, we could have a MUCH better one which would benefit EVERYONE. Yup. EVERYONE. A better fishery with more quality lakes is a win, win, win, win, win situation. So if we could have it, why don't we?

Cheers.

[Sundancefisher]

First of all let me say this..............:tongue2:

Secondly, you ask away too many questions all at once.........sheeesh. Slow down and take a breath man. Do you think that firing all these questions at me all at once is going to make me crack or sumthin'? :sHa_sarcasticlol:

Taking 5 fish to eat is not disproportionate IMO. Unless of course, you're eating fish for breakfast, lunch and supper. In which case you are catching fish just to eat and I have no problem with that. I wouldn't consider that greed, I'd consider that survival.

I can't remember the rest of the questions so they probably aren't worthy of comment.

You city boys really crack me up. Always trying to think of ways to make things easier for yourselves. :)

Let me make it easier for you...

Do you consider it greed if your idea of enough means a disproportionate amount going to you when there is not enough for everyone to have an equal share because there is not enough fish in a lake for everyone to get 5 a day?

Sun

P.S. You are not answering any questions anymore for a reason?
You are a great guy on here HunterDave. Stirring the pot and having fun.:sHa_sarcasticlol: Problem is the lack of your answers shows your believes track mine cause you can't answer truthfully or else your gig is up. :sHa_shakeshout: If you answer opposite you are so off popular opinion no one will take you seriously anymore. Being the negative ninny may be fun once in a while...but you don't really add to the collective thought process or debate except occasionally making people think a bit more on a topic...which is not a bad thing to remind people including me once in a while. After a while however...it does get old.

[Freedom55]

Let me apologize in the most sincere, heart-felt way to the participants of this interesting topic for evoking the name of the last proponent on this very subject. Now I have awakened the sleeping giant. This thread has definitely taken on a nasty overtone since that fellow has put forward his two cents on both myself and now the Dave from north of here, and on the topic.

I meant only to try to keep the nastiness out of it when I posted my words and I am sorry that my enemy has become your enemy.

Anyway, that was a lot of red ink.

Free (range)

[HunterDave]

As I've already said HunterDave, it's not about it being easier, it's about it being possible and there is a big difference. I'm still waiting for the list of 3 lakes that it is possible to catch a 20"+ fish on a regular basis. I say "regular" basis because I don't want any "anomalies". "I once caught a 21" rainbow out of lake x back in 1980," doesn't count. Out of 300 stocked lakes in Alberta, if the fishery was anything better than mediocre, it should be easy to list 25 - 50 of such lakes.

I grew up on my grandpa's farm and he stocked fish in a dugout every year that winterkilled. He put 10-12" in the spring and by fall they were well over 16" and many over 18". That's in one year! I realize that not all lakes have the capacity to grow fish that big, that quick (especially when SRD overstocks the %*^* out of them) but it shouldn't be that hard to raise fish to a descent size.

There is a quote that says something like, "Good is what stops us from getting to great." I think you, and many people in Alberta, believe that the fishery is "good." I, and many others would disagree with you that it is mediocre to poor at best. Regardless of where you see the fishery and where I see the fishery, the fact is, we could have a MUCH better one which would benefit EVERYONE. Yup. EVERYONE. A better fishery with more quality lakes is a win, win, win, win, win situation. So if we could have it, why don't we?

Cheers.

Okay, since they are terminating the trout stocking program for Peanut Lake I might as well tell you about that one. Three years ago a few of us went out there to catch some fish to bbq that night out at the trailer. We were trolling in 2 different boats using Little Cleo's (no bait) on our lines. Every 5 minutes or so we were catching a fish. We wanted to catch 12" to 14" fish because they, to us anyway, are the best size and tasting fish for eating. Mostly we were catching fish that were about 16" to 20". I would expect that due to the low water level in the lake this year it will winterkill anyway.

You see, that's just one lake that had/has bigger fish in it. Hasse was another lake that I've caught bigger fish in but we all know that there are no fish left in it. :scared: How about Kananaskis Lakes.......no bigger fish in there?

How you perceive the current fishing opportunities in Alberta is relative to the way that you think. Some might consider a 16" trout as a decent size, you do not. Regardless, no matter how you sugar coat "quality" fisheries it's all about creating something that makes catching big fish easy. I believe that the anglers that want that type of fishery are in a very small minority and creating more quality fisheries does not benefit everyone as you stated, it only benefits the small minority that wants it. The average angler is happy to go out and be able to catch fish and not just big ones.

It's not a win win situation otherwise everyone would support it. It would be a win for the trophy anglers and a loss for the average angler that loses the opportunity to catch, keep and eat smaller "eatin" sized fish. Until you understand that you'll never understand why people oppose "quality" fisheries.

[Sundancefisher]

Regardless, no matter how you sugar coat "quality" fisheries it's all about creating something that makes catching big fish easy.

I am not sure that is what people are saying...they are saying they want to make catching bigger fish "possible". Pure and simple.
Nobody is saying they believe they can change the regulations to make it possible to catch 100 - 24 inch rainbows a day. More likely hope it to catch a number of trout between 9 and 20 inches...rather than only 9 inches. Anyone disagree with that summation?

[chubbdarter]

not to cause the conversation to go sideways....but i doubt many people are willing to post the lakes in which they are catching quality fish on the forum.

[HunterDave]

Let me make it easier for you...

Do you consider it greed if your idea of enough means a disproportionate amount going to you when there is not enough for everyone to have an equal share because there is not enough fish in a lake for everyone to get 5 a day?

Sun

P.S. You are not answering any questions anymore for a reason?
You are a great guy on here HunterDave. Stirring the pot and having fun.:sHa_sarcasticlol: Problem is the lack of your answers shows your believes track mine cause you can't answer truthfully or else your gig is up. :sHa_shakeshout: If you answer opposite you are so off popular opinion no one will take you seriously anymore. Being the negative ninny may be fun once in a while...but you don't really add to the collective thought process or debate except occasionally making people think a bit more on a topic...which is not a bad thing to remind people including me once in a while. After a while however...it does get old.

I don't know of any lakes like that and I certainly don't fish them. Where I go there are fish in the lake and everyone has an equal opportunity of catching them. Whether or not I, or anyone else, catches our limit, or even catches one fish, is entirely up to how effective/lucky we are on any given day. I guess that's why I call it fishing and not catching. :)

I don't feel the need to answer every question that is posted, particularly if I think that it is not pertinent or if it is rhetorical. I actually thought that I had added quite a bit to the discussion by explaining my perception of "quality" fisheries and offering alternative solutions to them.

It's unfortunate that you don't see any value in my posts but perhaps some readers/posters do. I doubt that anyone has a gun to your head forcing you to read them so if you find them particularly disturbing or not worth the effort to read, why torment yourself? :confused0024:

Bye. :wave:

[HunterDave]

not to cause the conversation to go sideways....but i doubt many people are willing to post the lakes in which they are catching quality fish on the forum.

It's no big secret around here if you talk to the people that know. Allot of anglers are too lazy to want to get to them anyway. I just don't see the need to post something like that on a public forum. I did offer up Peanut, Hasse and Kananaskis Lakes though. :)

[SNAPFisher]

Wow, you just don't seem to get it Dave. Easy to catch big fish... no one on here has said that except you. Seeing as you wear them all the time, I can tell you place that you can find cheap blinders.

Have you or do you ever fish Muir?

[HunterDave]

Wow, you just don't seem to get it Dave. Easy to catch big fish... no one on here has said that except you. Seeing as you wear them all the time, I can tell you place that you can find cheap blinders.

Have you or do you ever fish Muir?

No one that wants "quality" fisheries will ever come right out and say it, of course not. But if you unwrap the package what do you get.........easy to catch big fish. Calling a spade by a different name doesn't make it any different.

No, never been to Muir although it's only about 30 kms from here. Chickakoo is just a little farther down the road from there and there's a health supply of pan sized brookies that taste pretty good though. :)

Oh yeah, my wife says that size doesn't matter. :sHa_sarcasticlol:

[chubbdarter]

in a perfect world all the fisherman who are catching quality fish would post up their opinions and even pictures.
just like the southern alberta walleye situation.....successful walleye anglers are just not willing to give up that kind of info.
in fact that goes for every species of fish.
In no way take my statements as saying anyone in this thread is a good or not good fisherman.
Because this is trout thread...i really would like to hear peoples definitions
1- is a quality fishery a body of water that someone like Brian Chan can go out every trip and catch a 20 inch trout....or is it a quality fishery when every one can do that because of the abundance of fish?

[SNAPFisher]

Oh yeah, my wife says that size doesn't matter.

LOL!

Haven't been to Chickakoo but it does sound like a nice place to go.

In my experience bigger fish are not easier to catch. That makes them a challenge to target and that much more sweet when you can catch one. I guess we have to live with that you will go to the 5 limit lake and some of us will choose to go to the trophy lake on the odd day. Hope we get more choices for trophies in the future.

[HunterDave]

Because this is trout thread...i really would like to hear peoples definitions
1- is a quality fishery a body of water that someone like Brian Chan can go out every trip and catch a 20 inch trout....or is it a quality fishery when every one can do that because of the abundance of fish?

Definitely the second one. People are already fishing bodies of water that have 20" trout in them but they are calling it a "quality" fishery because there aren't enough 20" trout in there for their liking IMO.

[HunterDave]

LOL!

Haven't been to Chickakoo but it does sound like a nice place to go.

In my experience bigger fish are not easier to catch. That makes them a challenge to target and that much more sweet when you can catch one. I guess we have to live with that you will go to the 5 limit lake and some of us will choose to go to the trophy lake on the odd day. Hope we get more choices for trophies in the future.

EXACTLY! :sHa_shakeshout: Right now they aren't easier to catch! But the idea of a "quality" fishery is to make them easier to catch and take the challenge out of catching a big one. Wouldn't it be allot less sweet catching a 20" trout out of a "quality" fishery lake?

[Bigtoad]

I'm not looking for you to post the names of great lakes; saying that you know of 3 or more is enough for me. I'm crazy but I still have a few marbles...

My point, and the point of several other posters here is that there are very few lakes managed as quality lakes and hundreds that are put and take. I believe the there is a huge discrepancy between the percentage of people that want quality fisheries and the percentage of quality fisheries that we have. We don't want to eliminate put and take, we just want a more equal opportunity.

I'm also not convinced that the majority of fishermen want a 5 fish limit. This poll is an example. And yes, we've already discussed that this poll does not represent all fishermen in Alberta but I think the sample is pretty good. It really is surprising to me how many people on this forum would want a 1 fish limit or total C&R (of course, not to the exclusion of put and takes which I think most can agree are necessary) and I think if you were to poll Alberta fishermen who target stillwater trout you would find a very similar trend; that we are tired of lots of little fish and would have a much better experience catching and keeping a few less fish if it means that those fish are bigger.

And finally... HunetDave, let me use your own analogy of hunting. You go out hunting whitetails and during the whole hunting season, all you see are spike bucks. Now you want some meat so you shoot one of the spikers out of the 5 tags that you have. That's enough for you but many people believe it's their god-given right to take all 5, whether they use them or not.

Each year, you go farther and farther to try to find a decent whitetail buck and they are getting really hard to find, even in the more isolated areas which aren't nearly as isolated as they used to be. You remember when you were younger and there were less hunters, when a nice buck was 140 and weighed 300lbs and sometimes there were some real monsters in the fields around your place. Now, everyone sees a 3x3 buck and thinks it's huge.

Sick of every buck getting shot before it can get bigger and sick that bucks can't get old enough to get "whily" the sport is out of it for you. Sure, kids and grandparents still have fun shooting spikers but you were hoping for more. So you suggest to to the hunters in your area that perhaps they could reduce the harvest of bucks to 3 or 1 or maybe even just 1 buck that needs to have at least 4 points on one side. Well, the hunters are enraged! You're obviously trying to make hunting big bucks easier! You try to tell them that that is not the case. There just aren't any big bucks because they all get shot. NONSENSE! they cry! There are still one or two 3x3 bucks around and one guy even saw a 5x5 (of course, when word got out where it was, 20 hunters descended upon that bush and wiped every buck out by the end of the next weekend).

Besides, the poor kids and grandpa's won't be able to shoot as many spike bucks if you limit the number. You tell them that there will still be spike bucks around, but they now might be able to shoot something bigger as well. Nope! If you let more bucks get big, then you're just making it easier. And kids like to shoot spikers, they don't need to shoot a bigger buck. Sorry. If you want to shoot a big buck, you'll have to go to Sask, Manitoba, or B.C. or go WAY up into the mountains where no one can get at them. You don't like it, go somewhere else fella, cause here we like to shoot deer, and lots of them.

I realize C&R doesn't work in this analogy but I hope you can better understand the quality argument from the other side.

Cheers.

[chubbdarter]

Definitely the second one. People are already fishing bodies of water that have 20" trout in them but they are calling it a "quality" fishery because there aren't enough 20" trout in there for their liking IMO.

if thats the case....a huge remote lake must be chosen then..because i fear a lake like that will be shoulder to shoulder.....and boat to boat.

[HunterDave]

I realize C&R doesn't work in this analogy but I hope you can better understand the quality argument from the other side.

Interesting read Bigtoad and it obviously took you a bit of time to think it out and write it. You can certainly spin a good yarn. :)

Here's the downside to your story as I see it.

That scenario only applies to trophy "Quality" hunters that only want big bucks and not the average hunter. The average hunter, myself included, are meat hunters. If I want a deer to eat then I'll shoot a doe and I don't care about the antlers. It's like keeping the smaller eatin' sized fish.

It's nice to be able to shoot a big buck, don't get me wrong, and if the opportunity arises then I'm sure that every meat hunter would instantly become a trophy hunter. However, I'll bet that there are not too many of either type of hunter that would want to go out and shoot a penned deer that was grown to a big size. Ethics aside, the challenge just wouldn't exist nor would the feeling of accomplishing something truly noteworthy.

Now if you go out fishing in Lake X and catch a 20" trout and tell your buddies they'd be impressed. However, if you go to Lake Y, a "Quality" fishery, and catch a 20" trout so what? The lake is full of them and people catch bigger ones than that everyday. :confused0024: I'm not suggesting that you only go out and catch big fish to impress your buddies, just pointing out the attitudes would change dependent on the level of difficulty. :)

I know that you keep saying that there are no lakes in Alberta, other than the "quality" fisheries, that hold +20" trout but I know that isn't true. They are there, they're just harder to catch than the smaller ones. :)

[chubbdarter]

I'm not looking for you to post the names of great lakes; saying that you know of 3 or more is enough for me. I'm crazy but I still have a few marbles...

My point, and the point of several other posters here is that there are very few lakes managed as quality lakes and hundreds that are put and take. I believe the there is a huge discrepancy between the percentage of people that want quality fisheries and the percentage of quality fisheries that we have. We don't want to eliminate put and take, we just want a more equal opportunity.

I'm also not convinced that the majority of fishermen want a 5 fish limit. This poll is an example. And yes, we've already discussed that this poll does not represent all fishermen in Alberta but I think the sample is pretty good. It really is surprising to me how many people on this forum would want a 1 fish limit or total C&R (of course, not to the exclusion of put and takes which I think most can agree are necessary) and I think if you were to poll Alberta fishermen who target stillwater trout you would find a very similar trend; that we are tired of lots of little fish and would have a much better experience catching and keeping a few less fish if it means that those fish are bigger.

And finally... HunetDave, let me use your own analogy of hunting. You go out hunting whitetails and during the whole hunting season, all you see are spike bucks. Now you want some meat so you shoot one of the spikers out of the 5 tags that you have. That's enough for you but many people believe it's their god-given right to take all 5, whether they use them or not.

Each year, you go farther and farther to try to find a decent whitetail buck and they are getting really hard to find, even in the more isolated areas which aren't nearly as isolated as they used to be. You remember when you were younger and there were less hunters, when a nice buck was 140 and weighed 300lbs and sometimes there were some real monsters in the fields around your place. Now, everyone sees a 3x3 buck and thinks it's huge.

Sick of every buck getting shot before it can get bigger and sick that bucks can't get old enough to get "whily" the sport is out of it for you. Sure, kids and grandparents still have fun shooting spikers but you were hoping for more. So you suggest to to the hunters in your area that perhaps they could reduce the harvest of bucks to 3 or 1 or maybe even just 1 buck that needs to have at least 4 points on one side. Well, the hunters are enraged! You're obviously trying to make hunting big bucks easier! You try to tell them that that is not the case. There just aren't any big bucks because they all get shot. NONSENSE! they cry! There are still one or two 3x3 bucks around and one guy even saw a 5x5 (of course, when word got out where it was, 20 hunters descended upon that bush and wiped every buck out by the end of the next weekend).

Besides, the poor kids and grandpa's won't be able to shoot as many spike bucks if you limit the number. You tell them that there will still be spike bucks around, but they now might be able to shoot something bigger as well. Nope! If you let more bucks get big, then you're just making it easier. And kids like to shoot spikers, they don't need to shoot a bigger buck. Sorry. If you want to shoot a big buck, you'll have to go to Sask, Manitoba, or B.C. or go WAY up into the mountains where no one can get at them. You don't like it, go somewhere else fella, cause here we like to shoot deer, and lots of them.

I realize C&R doesn't work in this analogy but I hope you can better understand the quality argument from the other side.

Cheers.

pardon my ignorance or what ever other things you may call me....but if thats true and the majority dont want a 5 fish limit....then i must assume the majority are helping the cause by taking fewer or no fish at all....which then brings me to the point....will any proposed changes - change things?
simply put if the majority dont want a 5 fish limit...they must be self regulating themselfs and the minority are still keeping 5 fish.

[SNAPFisher]

EXACTLY! :sHa_shakeshout: Right now they aren't easier to catch! But the idea of a "quality" fishery is to make them easier to catch and take the challenge out of catching a big one. Wouldn't it be allot less sweet catching a 20" trout out of a "quality" fishery lake?

You just don't get it Dave. Even if I am at Muir and I catch an average of 18 inchers (nice!!), I'm still really after that monster 25 incher or bigger that is in there. You just seem to want to argue with yourself about the "easier" point of view. That isnt even a part of this discussion. Quality fisheries are managed in every province...and better in places like Manitoba or B.C. The hope here is that they can add a few more to the equation. Can you at least understand that???

[HunterDave]

if thats the case....a huge remote lake must be chosen then..because i fear a lake like that will be shoulder to shoulder.....and boat to boat.

I knew that I'd reel ya in sooner or later. :sHa_sarcasticlol:

Ya see, I live in a small town so allot of stuff gets around. If you live here long enough you hear about where the occasional whopper is caught. A few years ago someone caught a monster trout in Cardiff Pond! Based on my experience anywhere that has trout in it and there's no winter/summer kill has the potential to grow big fish. Maybe not allot of them but they are there.

[HunterDave]

You just don't get it Dave. Even if I am at Muir and I catch an average of 18 inchers (nice!!), I'm still really after that monster 25 incher or bigger that is in there. You just seem to want to argue with yourself about the "easier" point of view. That isnt even a part of this discussion. Quality fisheries are managed in every province...and better in places like Manitoba or B.C. The hope here is that they can add a few more to the equation. Can you at least understand that???

So you're not catching 18" trout easier in Muir over a non-"quality" fishing lake then? :sign0161:

I only know of one place in Manitoba and you have to pay to fish there. Are there other provincially funded "quality" fisheries there?

[chubbdarter]

I knew that I'd reel ya in sooner or later. :sHa_sarcasticlol:

Ya see, I live in a small town so allot of stuff gets around. If you live here long enough you hear about where the occasional whopper is caught. A few years ago someone caught a monster trout in Cardiff Pond! Based on my experience anywhere that has trout in it and there's no winter/summer kill has the potential to grow big fish. Maybe not allot of them but they are there.


lol.....i hate you cant edit at any time....ahhhahaahhaha

[Sundancefisher]

pardon my ignorance or what ever other things you may call me....but if thats true and the majority dont want a 5 fish limit....then i must assume the majority are helping the cause by taking fewer or no fish at all....which then brings me to the point....will any proposed changes - change things?
simply put if the majority dont want a 5 fish limit...they must be self regulating themselfs and the minority are still keeping 5 fish.

Interesting point. Near as I can tell however the answer to your question comes from the finite nature of the resource. There are way more people taking their 5 fish daily limit than taking nothing. So the fish get depleted fast but not near as fast as if everyone took them all. People that release do help...but it does not stop the depletion problem in places. The other factor is some people are making lots of trips to harvest and in turn but that is their right under the 5 fish a day limit.

Those that want to just catch and release fish along with a great chance at bigger ones have few options compared to the norm of put and take fisheries. So far everyone wanting more options are not asking to eliminate put and take fisheries as they stand now.

It really comes down to fishing pressure...not all lakes get the same pressure. That is were F&W need to do their research when selecting which lakes should be put and take and which should be quality etc.

[Sundancefisher]

Interesting read Bigtoad and it obviously took you a bit of time to think it out and write it. You can certainly spin a good yarn. :)

Here's the downside to your story as I see it.

That scenario only applies to trophy "Quality" hunters that only want big bucks and not the average hunter. The average hunter, myself included, are meat hunters. If I want a deer to eat then I'll shoot a doe and I don't care about the antlers. It's like keeping the smaller eatin' sized fish.

It's nice to be able to shoot a big buck, don't get me wrong, and if the opportunity arises then I'm sure that every meat hunter would instantly become a trophy hunter. However, I'll bet that there are not too many of either type of hunter that would want to go out and shoot a penned deer that was grown to a big size. Ethics aside, the challenge just wouldn't exist nor would the feeling of accomplishing something truly noteworthy.

Now if you go out fishing in Lake X and catch a 20" trout and tell your buddies they'd be impressed. However, if you go to Lake Y, a "Quality" fishery, and catch a 20" trout so what? The lake is full of them and people catch bigger ones than that everyday. :confused0024: I'm not suggesting that you only go out and catch big fish to impress your buddies, just pointing out the attitudes would change dependent on the level of difficulty. :)

I know that you keep saying that there are no lakes in Alberta, other than the "quality" fisheries, that hold +20" trout but I know that isn't true. They are there, they're just harder to catch than the smaller ones. :)


There are lots of hunting analogies kicking around but unfortunately they are not as relevant as I would hope. Simply because you can't employ shoot and release management.

Still, how about this one?

From a hunting perspective...if the Province stocked 1000 mule deer in an area and allowed 5 a day...and there was no restrictions to who can hunt...how long until there are no mule deer? This is one question and the second is if all mule deer are year olds and they never grow bigger...should the folks that want bigger deer have that option...being fair to all hunters and their preferences? Should people have to right to go to one place for small deer for the freezer and another for a larger 3, 4 or 5 point deer? Should everyone be forced to shoot only yearling?

[SNAPFisher]

So you're not catching 18" trout easier in Muir over a non-"quality" fishing lake then? :sign0161:

I only know of one place in Manitoba and you have to pay to fish there. Are there other provincially funded "quality" fisheries there?

Wow! It is amazing to see your posts. Why can't you get off the "easy" train that you yourself started?

Manitoba is fast becoming a mecca for "quality" trout fisheries in one area of the province. They do have a ton of put and take as well. Just goes to show what variety in management can do:

http://www.flippr.ca/

Thinking of making the trip to Manitoba's Parkland one day. Looks to be worth it to me. Take a look through "Open the site" and read what they are doing. If you cannot see any advantage to having this kind of variety in fisheries then I'm afraid that you will never get it. Hopefully things can change for the better here through others.

When you look at something that they have done there is the other benefits of increased tourism and profile that most do not think about. Do you think that people are going to travel from all over to sample Alberta's 5 pygmy trout limit? Why do you think the Bow is so popular around the world? Is it because small fish are in abundance? Pull your head our of your you know what...

[chubbdarter]

okay im trying to be fair and learn something
its no secret Sun is a biologist and i believe specializing in fisheries
so one can assume he has a better understanding of this issue

so heres my question, with all sincerity.
Sun....if you could pick the lakes . Which ones would they be and no limit on how many you pick. Lakes your confident meet the enviromental qualifications.
Also....what would the specific regs be? bait? fly only? icefishing?
Also ....what would you want stocking rates be like?

i guess im trying to narrow this discussion down to specifics....and maybe we poop and get off the pot and just lay it all out there.
i have confidence if you want this so bad you can easily answer the above questions.

with respect
cd

[HunterDave]

Wow! It is amazing to see your posts. Why can't you get off the "easy" train that you yourself started?

Manitoba is fast becoming a mecca for "quality" trout fisheries in one area of the province. They do have a ton of put and take as well. Just goes to show what variety in management can do:

http://www.flippr.ca/

Thinking of making the trip to Manitoba's Parkland one day. Looks to be worth it to me. Take a look through "Open the site" and read what they are doing. If you cannot see any advantage to having this kind of variety in fisheries then I'm afraid that you will never get it. Hopefully things can change for the better here through others.

When you look at something that they have done there is the other benefits of increased tourism and profile that most do not think about. Do you think that people are going to travel from all over to sample Alberta's 5 pygmy trout limit? Why do you think the Bow is so popular around the world? Is it because small fish are in abundance? Pull your head our of your you know what...

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's the one that I heard about. Not only is this a "quality" fishery but I believe that is also a "Private" fishery where you have to pay to fish. I'm pretty sure about it but not 100%.

You already have somewhere to go to like that in Alberta. I can't remember the name of it but it's a lake in the Rockies and I think that it starts with an "M".

[HunterDave]

Wow! It is amazing to see your posts. Why can't you get off the "easy" train that you yourself started?

Cuz that's what it's all about regardless of what you want to call it. :confused0024:

[SNAPFisher]

Cuz that's what it's all about regardless of what you want to call it. :confused0024:

Its not. As many times as you can not hear it through that thick, dented skull of yours, it is about choice. We have little of it in Alberta compared to other provinces.

[SNAPFisher]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's the one that I heard about. Not only is this a "quality" fishery but I believe that is also a "Private" fishery where you have to pay to fish. I'm pretty sure about it but not 100%.

You already have somewhere to go to like that in Alberta. I can't remember the name of it but it's a lake in the Rockies and I think that it starts with an "M".

Where does it say you have to pay in Manitoba? I've been reading about FLIPPR for awhile now and the Parkland area and have not ran into that. Please share your wealth of knowledge on how you know this.

P.S. Even if it was, I would still pay to go there. My choice, obviously not yours.

P.S.S. Taken from a review site:

The FLIPPR Lakes

The FLIPPR lakes are regulated to maintain a population of large fish, since all fish over 45 cm (18 inches) must be released. They are frequented by those wanting to hook a truly large fish for some photos and yet retain one for the frying pan.


Seems like a pretty good compromise to me. Almost like...common sense...

[HunterDave]

Where does it say you have to pay in Manitoba? I've been reading about FLIPPR for awhile now and the Parkland area and have not ran into that. Please share your wealth of knowledge on how you know this.

P.S. Even if it was, I would still pay to go there. My choice, obviously not yours.

Seems like a pretty good compromise to me. Almost like...common sense...

You're starting to "SNAP" SNAPFisher. :sHa_sarcasticlol:

"A FLIPPR Year End Overview by Ray Frey by CEO Ray Frey"
CEO? Is that what they call the Minister of Natural Resources in Manitoba?

If you want to pay to catch big fish then by all means, fill your boots. If you want ME to fund your "quality" fishery with MY fishing licensing fees then take a hike over to Manitoba. Why should I give up my fishing opportunities so you can catch bigger fish?

Like I mentioned in an earlier post, there's already at least one such "private" fishery that I know of in Alberta. Pay the dues and enjoy catching all of the big fish that you want there.

[Sundancefisher]

so heres my question, with all sincerity.
Sun....if you could pick the lakes . Which ones would they be and no limit on how many you pick. Lakes your confident meet the enviromental qualifications.
Also....what would the specific regs be? bait? fly only? icefishing?
Also ....what would you want stocking rates be like?

i guess im trying to narrow this discussion down to specifics....and maybe we poop and get off the pot and just lay it all out there.
i have confidence if you want this so bad you can easily answer the above questions.

with respect
cd

Very tough questions to answer straight up Chubdarter. There are so many variables that go into making any scientific fisheries management decision. Then there is tweaking after the fact as additional learning occur. However, if we don't start trying...nothing ever gets done. We can also move slow like a city parks and rec grounds mower...but again...stalling just delays making the necessary fixes.

I have not done the research on specific lakes nor do I have access to F&W data base. With that data...one could easily start making some choices.

Interesting thing about catch and release lakes is you don't need a lot of them to supply the demand as the fish don't disappear into freezers. We had some harvest here in Lake Sundance after the 200-300 larger trout were stocked. Some have definitely gone or released poorly but at least 100 remain and chasing them around the lake is a fun pasttime...not easy for everyone but definitely more fun that a 9 incher stocked in the Fall. As people learn proper catch and release methods that would save some...zero limit would of protected the balance. We can have a fair number fishing on the lake and catching and ours is a tiny lake relative to others.

I would have to say Don is probably the most knowledgeable on what lakes he knows of that would make sense out of the 300 or so in the province to be strictly C&R. I would say 10 would be plenty not sure if Don would agree. 50 quality lakes seems like a reasonable number. Probably 100 lakes in strategic places for the put and take crowd would be ample (along with repeated stockings)...that leaves 140 in which F&W can try various 1 over 16 or 1 under 16, or 3 under 16 etc. or leave as a put and take lake to try and find a balance of fish to fishermen.

Trophy lakes (C&R) would have low stocking rates...no ice fishing...no bait...but allow spin fishing or fly fishing. Stocking rates would be monitored to ensure growth rates remain high. If enforcement was better in the Province to protect against poaching...I would not mind ice fishing although C&R in the Winter can increase mortality from frozen gills etc.

One has to realize that it does not take catching 50 - 10 lb rainbows to make the grade... Catching 1 or 2 a day would make anyone scream with excitement.

Sounds like some lakes like Struble could support trophy size fish with a limit or stay no limit so we have to keep all ideas on the table.

There is no easy choices off my head for do this and this and this specifically to make things better.

In a perfect world I would like to see a volunteer committee of fishermen from all types to get together to make some good yet sometimes hard decisions to make fishing better for fishermen...not solely politicians and a government bureaucracy.

Still we have to give credit to the changes F&W have tried and hope that more improvements can be made.

So in a nutshell...I don't have the data to lay out a plan.

Sun

[DuckBrat]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's the one that I heard about. Not only is this a "quality" fishery but I believe that is also a "Private" fishery where you have to pay to fish. I'm pretty sure about it but not 100%.

You already have somewhere to go to like that in Alberta. I can't remember the name of it but it's a lake in the Rockies and I think that it starts with an "M".

Let me clarify there are over 20 lakes within an hour of Roblin (Parkland), Manitoba. I fished 10 of them last summer/fall, each which was aerated. I caught Rainbow, Brown, and Tiger trout to 31" (78.74 cm). The fish are there in both numbers and size. There is a lot of pressure on certain lakes that still produce the quality fish. They have 2 lakes right in the town of Roblin(East and West Goose), that see anglers every day and continue to produce large fish. Why? The residents know that by maintaining the fishery the anglers will bring their cash. Any one of of our Potholes could produce the same fishery as the waters are very similar. None of these lakes were private. The only thing I saw was a drop box at one location to collect for the operation of an aerator, which was optional.

They even allow for some harvest. Everyone wins, what is the trouble with understanding their success??????????


The only private water in the Alberta rockies is Chief Hector Pond.

[chubbdarter]

Very tough questions to answer straight up Chubdarter. There are so many variables that go into making any scientific fisheries management decision. Then there is tweaking after the fact as additional learning occur. However, if we don't start trying...nothing ever gets done. We can also move slow like a city parks and rec grounds mower...but again...stalling just delays making the necessary fixes.

I have not done the research on specific lakes nor do I have access to F&W data base. With that data...one could easily start making some choices.

Interesting thing about catch and release lakes is you don't need a lot of them to supply the demand as the fish don't disappear into freezers. We had some harvest here in Lake Sundance after the 200-300 larger trout were stocked. Some have definitely gone or released poorly but at least 100 remain and chasing them around the lake is a fun pasttime...not easy for everyone but definitely more fun that a 9 incher stocked in the Fall. As people learn proper catch and release methods that would save some...zero limit would of protected the balance. We can have a fair number fishing on the lake and catching and ours is a tiny lake relative to others.

I would have to say Don is probably the most knowledgeable on what lakes he knows of that would make sense out of the 300 or so in the province to be strictly C&R. I would say 10 would be plenty not sure if Don would agree. 50 quality lakes seems like a reasonable number. Probably 100 lakes in strategic places for the put and take crowd would be ample (along with repeated stockings)...that leaves 140 in which F&W can try various 1 over 16 or 1 under 16, or 3 under 16 etc. or leave as a put and take lake to try and find a balance of fish to fishermen.

Trophy lakes (C&R) would have low stocking rates...no ice fishing...no bait...but allow spin fishing or fly fishing. Stocking rates would be monitored to ensure growth rates remain high. If enforcement was better in the Province to protect against poaching...I would not mind ice fishing although C&R in the Winter can increase mortality from frozen gills etc.

One has to realize that it does not take catching 50 - 10 lb rainbows to make the grade... Catching 1 or 2 a day would make anyone scream with excitement.

Sounds like some lakes like Struble could support trophy size fish with a limit or stay no limit so we have to keep all ideas on the table.

There is no easy choices off my head for do this and this and this specifically to make things better.

In a perfect world I would like to see a volunteer committee of fishermen from all types to get together to make some good yet sometimes hard decisions to make fishing better for fishermen...not solely politicians and a government bureaucracy.

Still we have to give credit to the changes F&W have tried and hope that more improvements can be made.

So in a nutshell...I don't have the data to lay out a plan.

Sun

Fair and Thank You
with all respect can you please tell us...Don's background for us that arent familiar

[Sundancefisher]

If you want to pay to catch big fish then by all means, fill your boots. If you want ME to fund your "quality" fishery with MY fishing licensing fees then take a hike over to Manitoba. Why should I give up my fishing opportunities so you can catch bigger fish?

HunterDave... I am sure you don't mean to say that all the people that want fishing options and pay their licencing fees should be forced to only follow what you want. That goes to my early question you would not answer.

Still...if that is your opinion it is a tiny minority when compared to the poll results.

I would say if you want to protect Carson as a put and take lake...then as part of any future discussions, that could very well be the case. But another lake may make better sense as a trophy or quality lake or another regulation as suggestions in this poll.

Any thoughts?

[Sundancefisher]

Fair and Thank You
with all respect can you please tell us...Don's background for us that arent familiar

I can't give a bio on him...just from reputation he has put tons of time into trying to improve fishing in the province as an avid outdoorsman and volunteer. Mega years of fishing experience.

How does that sound Don?

[HunterDave]

HunterDave... I am sure you don't mean to say that all the people that want fishing options and pay their licencing fees should be forced to only follow what you want. That goes to my early question you would not answer.

Still...if that is your opinion it is a tiny minority when compared to the poll results.

I would say if you want to protect Carson as a put and take lake...then as part of any future discussions, that could very well be the case. But another lake may make better sense as a trophy or quality lake or another regulation as suggestions in this poll.

Any thoughts?

Well if you're sure that is not what I meant then why mention it? :cool:

The majority of anglers want to be able to catch fish, not just big fish, but fish. They want to go out and enjoy a day of fishing just to enjoy the outdoors, spend time with their families, yadda, yadda, yadda. It doesn't matter that I happen to agree with the majority. :confused0024:

And what makes you think that people should be forced to follow your way as opposed to my way anyway? Is it somehow different to force people to chose your way because you think that it is better or that's what you want? :confused:

Awhile back you went on a huge campaign to try to get Kananaskis changed to a "quality" fishery yet you only managed to get a total of 283 signatures on the petition. So what, if anything, did you learn from that? :thinking-006:

If you want to refer to the attached poll to prove your point how about starting a poll that will give you accurate results. How many people would have voted for this one:

Limit of 5 any size with a good chance of fish over 20"

Not possible? Yeah, it is, because some of us have that choice now. :sHa_shakeshout: And you want me to give that up so it's easier for you to catch bigger fish? All that I can say to that is..............:tongue2:

[HunterDave]

You city boys down south ought to try to hold on to the easy fishin' lakes that you already have before you start trying to change anything else to a "Quality" fishery. :budo: You're welcome. :)

Quality Fishing Regulation Under Review for Police Lake: Action Requested

http://www.nlft.org/2011/02/25/quality-fishing-regulation-under-review-for-police-lake-action-requested/

A recent posting on Fly Fish Alberta is calling for public input on the Quality Fishery at Police Lake in Southern Alberta. This lake currently has special regulations, but there is a proposal to revert back to the old rules. Special rules are also in place at Muir Lake to help improve and sustain the quality of the fishery. Help influence the decision for Police Lake and other Quality Fisheries by sending a message to Terry as per the message below.

Police Outpost Lake. Review of Quality Fishing Regulation. Public/Stakeholder Input requested.

Proposal #1 Keep the current regulations (1 Trout Limit over 50 cm; Bait Ban; Closed November 1 to March 31)
Proposal #2 Go back to the previous regulations (5 Trout Limit; No Size Restrictions; No Bait Ban; Open Year Round)

You can send your opinion to:

Terry Clayton
Senior Fisheries Biologist ASRD Fish and Wildlife Division
2nd Floor, YPM Place
530-8 Street South
Lethbridge, Alberta
T1J 2J8
Fax: (403) 381-5723
Email: Terry.Clayton@gov.ab.ca

Terry will be accepting letters, faxes and emails up until Tuesday may 31, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. No phone calls will be accepted and only one response per angler, please. Please put “Police Lake Regulations” in the email subject line and feel free to indicate the reasons for your choice.
Alberta Sutainable Resource Development, Fisheries Management Division, appreciates your feedback and will consider your input when making a final management decision.

[Sundancefisher]

You city boys down south ought to try to hold on to the easy fishin' lakes that you already have before you start trying to change anything else to a "Quality" fishery. :budo: You're welcome. :)

Quality Fishing Regulation Under Review for Police Lake: Action Requested

http://www.nlft.org/2011/02/25/quality-fishing-regulation-under-review-for-police-lake-action-requested/

A recent posting on Fly Fish Alberta is calling for public input on the Quality Fishery at Police Lake in Southern Alberta. This lake currently has special regulations, but there is a proposal to revert back to the old rules. Special rules are also in place at Muir Lake to help improve and sustain the quality of the fishery. Help influence the decision for Police Lake and other Quality Fisheries by sending a message to Terry as per the message below.

Police Outpost Lake. Review of Quality Fishing Regulation. Public/Stakeholder Input requested.

Proposal #1 Keep the current regulations (1 Trout Limit over 50 cm; Bait Ban; Closed November 1 to March 31)
Proposal #2 Go back to the previous regulations (5 Trout Limit; No Size Restrictions; No Bait Ban; Open Year Round)

You can send your opinion to:

Terry Clayton
Senior Fisheries Biologist ASRD Fish and Wildlife Division
2nd Floor, YPM Place
530-8 Street South
Lethbridge, Alberta
T1J 2J8
Fax: (403) 381-5723
Email: Terry.Clayton@gov.ab.ca

Terry will be accepting letters, faxes and emails up until Tuesday may 31, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. No phone calls will be accepted and only one response per angler, please. Please put “Police Lake Regulations” in the email subject line and feel free to indicate the reasons for your choice.
Alberta Sutainable Resource Development, Fisheries Management Division, appreciates your feedback and will consider your input when making a final management decision.

Thanks for posting. I just sent in my vote.

[Sundancefisher]

Well if you're sure that is not what I meant then why mention it? :cool:

The majority of anglers want to be able to catch fish, not just big fish, but fish. They want to go out and enjoy a day of fishing just to enjoy the outdoors, spend time with their families, yadda, yadda, yadda. It doesn't matter that I happen to agree with the majority. :confused0024:

And what makes you think that people should be forced to follow your way as opposed to my way anyway? Is it somehow different to force people to chose your way because you think that it is better or that's what you want? :confused:

Awhile back you went on a huge campaign to try to get Kananaskis changed to a "quality" fishery yet you only managed to get a total of 283 signatures on the petition. So what, if anything, did you learn from that? :thinking-006:

If you want to refer to the attached poll to prove your point how about starting a poll that will give you accurate results. How many people would have voted for this one:

Limit of 5 any size with a good chance of fish over 20"

Not possible? Yeah, it is, because some of us have that choice now. :sHa_shakeshout: And you want me to give that up so it's easier for you to catch bigger fish? All that I can say to that is..............:tongue2:

You talk a great line...but you don't answer simple questions which seems to me you just love the attention.

You say you can catch lots of big fish and small fish in the lakes you fish in Alberta. Great that you can and nobody else can. If you are lucky enough to be near a stocked lake with little to no fishing pressure that could explain it however.

You stated I seem to want everyone to follow my way? All I have asked for is choices. Still keeping put and take lakes but asking for options. Just like this poll shows others want the same. You want everyone to follow you.

Big difference. Hope people read and see that.

Cheers

Sun

[Don Andersen]

In order to understand where we're going we must understand where we were.
From the 49th to the Edmonton area I've had the good fortune of catching trout over 5 lbs. with most of the larger fish caught some years ago. That was Quality Fishing.

Now if I traveled the same route I might get a chance in one single lake of a 5 lbs. fish. Obviously not a Quality fishery.

Now some folks want to return this Province to what it was and the few, by looking @ the poll - very few are saying that they don't want to catch decent sized fish.

The real question is - if the few want a lake where they can kill @ their hearts content - lets give them a few - maybe 10 or being a little magnanimous - maybe 20.


But no - in order to entertain the 12" fish crowd, we make every lake but 2 crap fisheries.

Is this ass-backwards or what.


Don

[Outcast 1100]

The problem is that alberta doesnt have enough lakes, i mean good sized lakes. i dont think C&R is good thing being that fish dont live very long, so there is no point to that unless it is a new fishery being started. you need a over under size limit to make it work properly. i would really like to see 5 any size a thing of the past, there is simply to much fishing pressure at some lakes to sustain a good fish population so everybody can have a chance at catching some nice sized fish, being a lake white or a rainbow trout. Take a picture its the catch you remember not the meal. personally most of the fish arent that great eating anyways, so i dont mind putting back the fish i catch. sea bass, grouper, red snapper, mahi mahi, those are good eating fish. LOL

[chubbdarter]

Sun....as a biologist are you in contact with other biologists in other provinces that everyone claims have so much better fishing?
Do you work for the Government fisheries?
Im not pointing fingers. For many reasons things may have not gone as well as desired...eg funding.
But here is my question to you a biologist.....the one group claims fishing is far from desireable and reminisses about days gone by. So when did the biologists see this happening? Is or Was it a matter of funding that allowed it to become a fishery the group is complaining about?
This is no way a direct bash towards you Sun....but when i repair anything in life i like to know why it broke and how to prevent it from happening again.

[Sundancefisher]

Sun....as a biologist are you in contact with other biologists in other provinces that everyone claims have so much better fishing?
Do you work for the Government fisheries?
Im not pointing fingers. For many reasons things may have not gone as well as desired...eg funding.
But here is my question to you a biologist.....the one group claims fishing is far from desireable and reminisses about days gone by. So when did the biologists see this happening? Is or Was it a matter of funding that allowed it to become a fishery the group is complaining about?
This is no way a direct bash towards you Sun....but when i repair anything in life i like to know why it broke and how to prevent it from happening again.

I have not been in fisheries since 1995 except volunteering here and there when I can...but I still read what I can and try NOT to lose what I learned over the years. It is no secret on this forum that I work for an oil company and not in an environmental capacity.

I don't really have any contacts left from when I was there...lots of turn over during those years. Fun times...hard work...sometimes hard to come by...low pay...unpaid overtime...danger and lots of travel.

Funding is not the root of the problem IMHO but rather failure to act appropriately to changing demographics of increasing anglers and harvest. To give people the quick fish in the pan as natural population depleted they created IMHO a revolving door of stock and remove...stock and remove. The door swings so quickly that fish often don't stay in the water longer than days (like Mount Lorette ponds for example). The rate of remove varies depending upon fishing pressure and water body size. Those lakes closest to major centers see the fastest depletion of stocked fish...those out of the way lakes fair better. F&W was IMHO mainly promoting a meat fishery and not a recreational fishery. I have said that before and I met some of them in the past. Typical thinking of the day was pay $40 in gas...bring home $40 worth of fresh fish. With a finite supply of fish and limited waters to fish...fishing pressure is just too high and that leads to over harvest even under the current regulations. F&W has not had the budget in which to staff biologists and technicians to specifically monitor fish recruitment and harvest but the biggest problem besides that was a delay in stopping population crashes before they happened. If anyone says to you that over fishing has not been a problem...well populations that have crashed include walleye, sturgeon, grayling, and many local populations of trout, pike, perch etc. Even mountain whitefish is IMHO way down in numbers and they are critical to feeding the larger predators like bull trout. I don't think a lack of money stopped a fix from being implemented sooner but rather the mentality of the time and maybe a fear of a backlash for reducing limits. Some people may tend to feel they have a right to a historical disproportionate share of resource as the numbers of people increase. But that is neither fair nor sustainable.

In the past...fish had a chance to grow as harvest was not as high and stocking was not the end all be all fix it.

Don A. may also shed some light on this and maybe even share with us a different opinion. Others may also reminise.

I am not so sure I would blame a general budget on our problems as our stocking program is massive compared to say BC. BC however has many more lakes such that fishing pressure is better balanced and spread out...not to mention better control on limits.

When I was younger...limits for trout were 10 a day...not 5 a day...now probably it should be 1 a day...just purely on population demographics.

I think you are a smart man to ask the important question...what broke it. That way the problem is not repeated.

[HunterDave]

Thanks for posting. I just sent in my vote.

No problem. I also sent an email to Terry giving him the heads up that I posted the information on here so he could expect to receive a higher than average volume of emails. :)

I too supported Police Lake staying a "quality" fishery. I did however go on to explain to him that my position was for entirely selfish reasons. I figure if Police Lake stayed a "quality" fishery there would be less likelihood that another one would open up near me. :)

It kind of makes me wonder how many "quality" fisheries that you boys down south want/need though.

[chubbdarter]

Im willing to support some changes if some basic provisions can be met
1- the choosen lake have other lakes relatively near by that remain governed by the regulations present now. This allows the other group to keep fishing as they please.
2- if possible a days fished log is estimated or kept. Sadly in some cases this method isnt fair but it is the era of if you dont use it be prepared to lose it. Im by no means suggesting killing every project lake, especially if successful.


i appreciate everyones....well you remember way back when stories.....but the fact is things change in life and many things cant be reversed.
i still know of some very good quality trout waters in alberta...thats a fact
do i lock all my doors of my truck when i go fishing.....yes....back 15 years ago...no...thats a fact. And i know i'll have to till the day im dirt dust.
Are the waters i claim as quality as good as the lakes i fish in B.C. ...NO...but they never were.
This has been a standing discussion for a long time, be honest the last thread was very similar in nature....so similar you'd need a biologist to examine both threads to separate them.
Maybe after all of this ...im not against the idea...with proper research...maybe im convinced with the amount of fisherman we have now the proposed project is doomed and not possible.
I think also the cart is before the horse. Tales of people hauling stringers of walleye from Travers and PCR....make me wonder
Compare your propossal to striking gold, who and what protects that gold now?

[chubbdarter]

No problem. I also sent an email to Terry giving him the heads up that I posted the information on here so he could expect to receive a higher than average volume of emails. :)

I too supported Police Lake staying a "quality" fishery. I did however go on to explain to him that my position was for entirely selfish reasons. I figure if Police Lake stayed a "quality" fishery there would be less likelihood that another one would open up near me. :)

It kind of makes me wonder how many "quality" fisheries that you boys down south want/need though.

I absolutely hated the ice fisherman getting the boot of the lake....but as you can see in my other post....i agree with you now....spread a few around

[goldscud]

So south of Calgary we have Police and Bullshead for limited harvest and a few tiny lakes in Kananaskis. The choices for quality fishing are endless

[Sundancefisher]

Im willing to support some changes if some basic provisions can be met
1- the choosen lake have other lakes relatively near by that remain governed by the regulations present now. This allows the other group to keep fishing as they please.
2- if possible a days fished log is estimated or kept. Sadly in some cases this method isnt fair but it is the era of if you dont use it be prepared to lose it. Im by no means suggesting killing every project lake, especially if successful.


i appreciate everyones....well you remember way back when stories.....but the fact is things change in life and many things cant be reversed.
i still know of some very good quality trout waters in alberta...thats a fact
do i lock all my doors of my truck when i go fishing.....yes....back 15 years ago...no...thats a fact. And i know i'll have to till the day im dirt dust.
Are the waters i claim as quality as good as the lakes i fish in B.C. ...NO...but they never were.
This has been a standing discussion for a long time, be honest the last thread was very similar in nature....so similar you'd need a biologist to examine both threads to separate them.
Maybe after all of this ...im not against the idea...with proper research...maybe im convinced with the amount of fisherman we have now the proposed project is doomed and not possible.
I think also the cart is before the horse. Tales of people hauling stringers of walleye from Travers and PCR....make me wonder
Compare your propossal to striking gold, who and what protects that gold now?


You make very reasonable points. Having everyone agree to share and compromise and not ignore any user group is key to improving fishing over all IMHO. Plus the more people that get hooked on catching more and bigger fish will gravitate to the quality fisheries and any future trophy fisheries and stay away from put and take fisheries.

As for having to lock your truck up...try this security system...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRNVxHPJ0hM

:-)

[HunterDave]

The problem is that alberta doesnt have enough lakes, i mean good sized lakes. i dont think C&R is good thing being that fish dont live very long, so there is no point to that unless it is a new fishery being started. you need a over under size limit to make it work properly. i would really like to see 5 any size a thing of the past, there is simply to much fishing pressure at some lakes to sustain a good fish population so everybody can have a chance at catching some nice sized fish, being a lake white or a rainbow trout. Take a picture its the catch you remember not the meal. personally most of the fish arent that great eating anyways, so i dont mind putting back the fish i catch. sea bass, grouper, red snapper, mahi mahi, those are good eating fish. LOL

Now there's an idea that I can sink my teeth into. Not that I agree with it entirely but it's nice to see someone thinking outside of the box. Cudos to you Outcast! :sHa_shakeshout:

Indeed there are allot of anglers to bodies of water in Alberta and short of digging big holes to flood or damming rivers to flood areas there's not much to do in order to change that. I don't think that filling bodies of water with easier to catch bigger fish is the answer though. Perhaps a three fish limit is a good option. For fish eaters like me it would just mean that I'd have to go out fishing more often if I wanted a meal. For the "quality" fishery fellas it might make it easier for them to catch a bigger fish.

I think that you would need to cap the size of fish that you were allowed to keep (ie nothing over 20" for example) in order to keep everyone happy though. The fish huggers would still get their photo op and the fish eaters would still be able to catch a meal.

It all comes down to angler attitude and education IMO. Most fish eaters know that smaller "eatin'" sized fish taste better than big fish. That's why they're called "eatin'" sized. :confused0024: Who wants to eat a muddy tasting big trout when you can eat a nicer tasting smaller one? Or, a big old greasy 10 lb lake trout over a better tasting 3 lber? If someone doesn't know or understand that then they need to be taught it. The "bigger is better" attitudes also have to change. There's far too much emphasis on catching big fish IMO. :)

[HunterDave]

In order to understand where we're going we must understand where we were.
From the 49th to the Edmonton area I've had the good fortune of catching trout over 5 lbs. with most of the larger fish caught some years ago. That was Quality Fishing.

Now if I traveled the same route I might get a chance in one single lake of a 5 lbs. fish. Obviously not a Quality fishery.

Now some folks want to return this Province to what it was and the few, by looking @ the poll - very few are saying that they don't want to catch decent sized fish.

The real question is - if the few want a lake where they can kill @ their hearts content - lets give them a few - maybe 10 or being a little magnanimous - maybe 20.


But no - in order to entertain the 12" fish crowd, we make every lake but 2 crap fisheries.

Is this ass-backwards or what.


Don

So you are admitting that you can catch a 5 lb trout right now. :huh: Isn't that enough? How many 5 lb trout do you need to catch on one fishing trip in order to satisfy your need to catch big fish? :confused0024:

And people wonder why I call "quality" fisheries a way of making catching bigger fish easier? Ask Don! They are already there, you just have to work harder to catch them. That's what makes it so sweet when you do. :sHa_shakeshout:

SRD currently has 17 lakes listed as "quality" fisheries. Why are you saying that there are only 2 of them?

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/ManagingPrograms/FishWildlifeManagement/FisheriesManagement/documents/ReadilyAccessibleHighQualityStockedTrou****ers-2010.pdf

[HunterDave]

You say you can catch lots of big fish and small fish in the lakes you fish in Alberta. Great that you can and nobody else can. If you are lucky enough to be near a stocked lake with little to no fishing pressure that could explain it however.

Yes, I can and no, I am not. Being near a lake like you described shouldn't be an issue according to you fellas......unless I'm correct in stating that this is all about making things easier! :sign0161:

[chubbdarter]

Yes, I can and no, I am not. Being near a lake like you described shouldn't be an issue according to you fellas......unless I'm correct in stating that this is all about making things easier! :sign0161:

in it simplest term or complicated term ....absolutely YES...EASIER

[Gust]

When was it ever about easier?,, Chub you've clocked a gazillion hours on lakes and streams as have I, it's a zen sport that changes in increments and is different one day to the next, it's about learning waters not just pulling up and wham a 10 pounder. I'm not challenging you by the way.

Is fishing as good as it was 30 years ago? Actually, come to think of it, I've learned more and more technique, so I would say yes it is as good,, and tomorrow I will learn more and so forth. Next year I will be that much closer to thinking I've mastered it and then feel as if I'm learning from scratch again.

There's a running assumption that if one isn't C&R then they are hoarders and the problem. Or likewise if one enjoys a put & take lake then they are chump fishermen not worthy of participating in a debate.

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF QUALITY FISHERY?
a number of fish every outing?
one a day 4 pounds and up?
one lunker a week a month a year, what, what, what?

Maybe people need to ask themselves why they fish.

Once that's defined then the debate will make sense.

If you are having problems catching 20"+ fish then it seems you need to hone a new technique and explore a bit and be a bit more hush on where the big ones are when you see em. They are there, you will find them, it takes years or work to learn about them.

Off topic; has anyone read "The River Why"?

[chubbdarter]

When was it ever about easier?,, Chub you've clocked a gazillion hours on lakes and streams as have I, it's a zen sport that changes in increments and is different one day to the next, it's about learning waters not just pulling up and wham a 10 pounder. I'm not challenging you by the way.

Is fishing as good as it was 30 years ago? Actually, come to think of it, I've learned more and more technique, so I would say yes it is as good,, and tomorrow I will learn more and so forth. Next year I will be that much closer to thinking I've mastered it and then feel as if I'm learning from scratch again.

There's a running assumption that if one isn't C&R then they are hoarders and the problem. Or likewise if one enjoys a put & take lake then they are chump fishermen not worthy of participating in a debate.

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF QUALITY FISHERY?
a number of fish every outing?
one a day 4 pounds and up?
one lunker a week a month a year, what, what, what?

Maybe people need to ask themselves why they fish.

Once that's defined then the debate will make sense.

If you are having problems catching 20"+ fish then it seems you need to hone a new technique and explore a bit and be a bit more hush on where the big ones are when you see em. They are there, you will find them, it takes years or work to learn about them.

Off topic; has anyone read "The River Why"?

im just simply saying....its easier if there is more...like finding ginch at walmart is easier to do then buying ginch at home depot
I agree with your variables....but Daves point is the more fish of quality proportions the easier it is to get one. That is a pretty rock solid statement. Even in the trophy fishery i fish for 25lb+ RBT that holds very true.
Badger is a good example. Even though some have problems there if you were to choose a lake to hunt a trophy....Badger or Carburn??

I also asked for a answer to what makes a quality fishery but got no answer.

Here is another point to add to the fire
the Bow river has been a ever changing fishery. I wasnt there when the cart broke down and they dumped the fish in the river as a last resort..lol
But ive logged alot of hours on the Bow, not so many in the park but from the Bears paw to arrowood. I have native friends who give me access to launch my jet boat on reserve land and mostly i fish the lower reaches.
There was a time when small drys were king and those times still occur. Times gone by hopper fishing was just stupid....fish would fight over a floating hopper...all though there are still times like that its not as common.
Many times i would watch a good flyfisherman work a run with even bobber and lead or swing a streamer...catch a few decent fish and claim the Bow aint what it used to be. Then a kid with a buzz bomb or count down rapala would take a turn at the run.....boom here comes in a 4-5 brown with the hardware in its mouth like a pitbull with a bone. One must ask is the Bow a quality fishery. OF COURSE IT IS...but imo its become a more lead bigger fly fishery. Do i enjoy the screaming kid's excitement more than watching a pouting flyfisherman with all the latest gear walking away in disgust....lol...its a close tie. The kid goes home after catching bugs and watching birds...eats a melted choco bar in his pocket...happiness in its truest form. The flyfisherman goes to the flyshop and tells everyone the Bow is finnished if we dont make the Bow fly only. Then goes home to watch a River Runs Through It for the 100th time with a razor blade in his hand.
Flyfisherman have alot of clout in this area.....count the fly shops....ever see a buzz bomb shop..lol. Even WSS built a separate room for flyfisherman im quessing to try prevent any disease they might catch from a lowly baitfisherman or hardware chucker.

Im not against flyfishing, after ice fishing for walleyes i enjoy it second best.
My point is this is how alot of misconceptions of how a fishery is doing get started.

I repeat im not flaming flyfisherman.....but if your one of the guys i spoke about above....i will expect your nasty response.

[HunterDave]

WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF QUALITY FISHERY?
a number of fish every outing?
one a day 4 pounds and up?
one lunker a week a month a year, what, what, what?

Maybe people need to ask themselves why they fish.

Once that's defined then the debate will make sense.

My definition of a "quality" fishery is different from the accepted definition that SRD calls it and hardcore "quality" fishery fellas.

To me a "quality" fishery is a lake where you have a reasonnable chance of catching a reasonnable amount of fish with the possibility of catching a bigger fish if you are lucky enough to hook one.

I fish for the enjoyment of fishing first and the ability to eat some of what I catch comes second.:)

[Sundancefisher]

Now there's an idea that I can sink my teeth into. Not that I agree with it entirely but it's nice to see someone thinking outside of the box. Cudos to you Outcast! :sHa_shakeshout:

Indeed there are allot of anglers to bodies of water in Alberta and short of digging big holes to flood or damming rivers to flood areas there's not much to do in order to change that. I don't think that filling bodies of water with easier to catch bigger fish is the answer though. Perhaps a three fish limit is a good option. For fish eaters like me it would just mean that I'd have to go out fishing more often if I wanted a meal. For the "quality" fishery fellas it might make it easier for them to catch a bigger fish.

I think that you would need to cap the size of fish that you were allowed to keep (ie nothing over 20" for example) in order to keep everyone happy though. The fish huggers would still get their photo op and the fish eaters would still be able to catch a meal.

It all comes down to angler attitude and education IMO. Most fish eaters know that smaller "eatin'" sized fish taste better than big fish. That's why they're called "eatin'" sized. :confused0024: Who wants to eat a muddy tasting big trout when you can eat a nicer tasting smaller one? Or, a big old greasy 10 lb lake trout over a better tasting 3 lber? If someone doesn't know or understand that then they need to be taught it. The "bigger is better" attitudes also have to change. There's far too much emphasis on catching big fish IMO. :)

Angler attitude is not controllable with limited fish numbers. Many people want to harvest what they legally can and before the other guy does. You can't stop that...only set regulations that controls the harvest rate over time.

The idea of a slot size could work in some lakes however but not in high use areas. Taking 3 a day and making repeated trips will delay the harvest but not allow fish to grow. The over 20 inch idea would therefore never materialize. Maybe 1 a day could work in some situations but then people will complain you can't feed the family. Still remember I am referring to high use areas. Remote lakes or lakes out in the middle of nowhere will have a better chance to see fish grow so it is possible. As I mentioned before...we should try ideas like this in places to see if it improves the value of the fishery.

Smaller trout versus larger trout in the same body of water will not have different taste unless the trout you just caught was just dumped by the hatchery truck. I have never seen this. That muddy taste comes from what the fish eats...not the water itself. Chironomids live in the mud and the anerobic bacteria release sulphur which taints the meat. We get that at Sundance as well. High mountain lakes or more rocky lakes...not as bad.

The whole purpose of stocking is to provide easy to catch fish which you are against. I am confused Dave... Do you want to reduce the numbers of trout stocked? Maybe the confusion lies between comparing quality fishery to a put and take fishery. Quality fisheries like Bullhead allows for natural growth of stocked rainbows till they reach a harvestable size. The fish remain in the lake so that there are fish to catch. Catch rates are higher and remain so over time. In a strictly stocked put and take lake...the fish are availble for immediate harvest. Catch rates decline quickly down to zero in many places within weeks after stocking. Newly stocked rainbows are incredibly easy to catch.

[goldscud]

For me, a quality trout fishery is where there is a good number of fish over 17" with a good chance of catching some fish over 20". Of course skill and experience will affect the catch rates. If you fish all day and catch a good number of fish that are all under 14", I wouldn't call that a quality fishery. It is true that a lake stuffed with huge fish doesn't offer much challenge. I've had some fun fishing in high density/huge fish scenarios. It gets old pretty quick unless you challenge yourself to catch the fish in a more difficult way. I'm looking for the opportunity to catch a few fish over 4lbs MOST days that I head out. I realize catch rates change between days, but experienced anglers always seem to catch most of the fish. Someone once said 10% of the fishermen catch 90% of the fish. The numbers seem too be not to far off. So even if I don't catch the fish over 4lb, I would like them to be present for the opportunity.

[HunterDave]

Do i enjoy the screaming kid's excitement more than watching a pouting flyfisherman with all the latest gear walking away in disgust....lol...its a close tie. The kid goes home after catching bugs and watching birds...eats a melted choco bar in his pocket...happiness in its truest form. The flyfisherman goes to the flyshop and tells everyone the Bow is finnished if we dont make the Bow fly only. Then goes home to watch a River Runs Through It for the 100th time with a razor blade in his hand.

Now that's funny stuff right there! :sHa_sarcasticlol:

Yeah, they're both equally entertaining to me for different reasons. :)

I'm the fella in the banged up 12' aluminum boat with a first aid kit containing a few different lures and my lumberjack jacket and ballcap on in. :lol:

[Sundancefisher]

For me, a quality trout fishery is where there is a good number of fish over 17" with a good chance of catching some fish over 20". Of course skill and experience will affect the catch rates. If you fish all day and catch a good number of fish that are all under 14", I wouldn't call that a quality fishery. It is true that a lake stuffed with huge fish doesn't offer much challenge. I've had some fun fishing in high density/huge fish scenarios. It gets old pretty quick unless you challenge yourself to catch the fish in a more difficult way. I'm looking for the opportunity to catch a few fish over 4lbs MOST days that I head out. I realize catch rates change between days, but experienced anglers always seem to catch most of the fish. Someone once said 10% of the fishermen catch 90% of the fish. The numbers seem too be not to far off. So even if I don't catch the fish over 4lb, I would like them to be present for the opportunity.

There seems to be a disparagy between two points regarding ease of fish catching and size.

A) One group wants easy to catch small trout 9-12 inches in length.

B) One group wants good catch rates but with plenty of 16-19 inch trout with a good chance over 20 inch

Group A hopes that there are lots of big fish around but you just have to hunt for them.

Group A tends to want to keep trout to eat.

Group A requires higher stocking rates to keep up on the harvest demand

Group B believes harvest rates are so high in Group A that there are so few bigger or none even that fishing is not challenging.

Group B tends to be more recreational fishing...and puts most trout back.

Group B requires lower stocking rates to increase growth rates.

What is a definition of Quality Lake would be for me?

It is a lake wherein the trout remain in the lake longer so that there are always trout to catch (when they bite) regardless of when the stocking truck left. Catch rates are higher and remain so over time. There are plenty of 16-19 inch trout with a good chance over 20 inch but still you have to have some skill to catch them as they are not dumb newly stocked trout.

Chubdarter...

Most flyfishermen started off chucking everything under the sink. They gravitated to flyfishing for a reason. It is definitely different than a buzz bomb and I have a tackle box full of them when needed.

There is lots of comments about how people should have to work for the trout and that it is not about having it easy. Flyfishing is the closest to work you can get. You need good technique, the right fly, the right location, the right presentation drift, depth etc... then you still miss a subtle strike. Buzz bombs are easier to catch fish at times...but it is not about the easy...it is about the chase and the hunt and tricking the fish. When that does not work...I break out my buzz bombs and rapalas.

Is it more entertaining or satisfying to see a 16 inch trout take a dry fly on the surface...or whack a buzz bomb under the surface? The answer is simple...depends upon the person and the day. And neither answer IMHO is wrong.

Cheers

Sun

[chubbdarter]

So you are admitting that you can catch a 5 lb trout right now. :huh: Isn't that enough? How many 5 lb trout do you need to catch on one fishing trip in order to satisfy your need to catch big fish? :confused0024:

And people wonder why I call "quality" fisheries a way of making catching bigger fish easier? Ask Don! They are already there, you just have to work harder to catch them. That's what makes it so sweet when you do. :sHa_shakeshout:

SRD currently has 17 lakes listed as "quality" fisheries. Why are you saying that there are only 2 of them?

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/ManagingPrograms/FishWildlifeManagement/FisheriesManagement/documents/ReadilyAccessibleHighQualityStockedTrou****ers-2010.pdf


WHOA.....stop the press....there is already 17 of these proposed fisheries?
Im at fault for not looking up the facts.
Are the 17 a sucess?

[HunterDave]

WHOA.....stop the press....there is already 17 of these proposed fisheries?
Im at fault for not looking up the facts.
Are the 17 a sucess?

Okay, now I'm freaked out. :scared: I was quoting Don Anderson's post. :confused:

I don't know if they are a success cuz I don't fish them. The proposal to shut down Police Lake doesn't seem to indicate that one was a success. :)

[chubbdarter]

There seems to be a disparagy between two points regarding ease of fish catching and size.

A) One group wants easy to catch small trout 9-12 inches in length.

B) One group wants good catch rates but with plenty of 16-19 inch trout with a good chance over 20 inch

Group A hopes that there are lots of big fish around but you just have to hunt for them.

Group A tends to want to keep trout to eat.

Group A requires higher stocking rates to keep up on the harvest demand

Group B believes harvest rates are so high in Group A that there are so few bigger or none even that fishing is not challenging.

Group B tends to be more recreational fishing...and puts most trout back.

Group B requires lower stocking rates to increase growth rates.

What is a definition of Quality Lake would be for me?

It is a lake wherein the trout remain in the lake longer so that there are always trout to catch (when they bite) regardless of when the stocking truck left. Catch rates are higher and remain so over time. There are plenty of 16-19 inch trout with a good chance over 20 inch but still you have to have some skill to catch them as they are not dumb newly stocked trout.

Chubdarter...

Most flyfishermen started off chucking everything under the sink. They gravitated to flyfishing for a reason. It is definitely different than a buzz bomb and I have a tackle box full of them when needed.

There is lots of comments about how people should have to work for the trout and that it is not about having it easy. Flyfishing is the closest to work you can get. You need good technique, the right fly, the right location, the right presentation drift, depth etc... then you still miss a subtle strike. Buzz bombs are easier to catch fish at times...but it is not about the easy...it is about the chase and the hunt and tricking the fish. When that does not work...I break out my buzz bombs and rapalas.

Is it more entertaining or satisfying to see a 16 inch trout take a dry fly on the surface...or whack a buzz bomb under the surface? The answer is simple...depends upon the person and the day. And neither answer IMHO is wrong.

Cheers

Sun

i agree Sun....there is a good chance the bug catching, bird watching choco eating kid who chucks lead will become a flyfisherman some day....but every kid deserves that piece of his or her life....its cog in the gear that makes us fisherman.
im not in total agreement with your easier statement....i hope your not saying flyfishing is a government regulation to conserve fish...because if thats a fact....i want flyfishing banned and only single spin reels and 15 foot noodle rods be used.
Even float fishing taken to the extreme is a real science.
In the end im not totally against your proposal.
But i fear more people will suffer than benifit....and i mean the people who dont entertain themselfs on the internet and children who fish.
Yes i know people say the kids can change techniques and some will. But the bobber and worm is highly effective in a highly stocked pond. Some families have limited time and very limited budgets.
All i ask is dont Rail road this proposal so it becomes the standard for regulations.....Remember the average joe fisherman please.

[chubbdarter]

Okay, now I'm freaked out. :scared: I was quoting Don Anderson's post. :confused:

I don't know if they are a success cuz I don't fish them. The proposal to shut down Police Lake doesn't seem to indicate that one was a success. :)

sorry Dave.
So is there 17 lakes managed as quality?
I hope its open to icefishing again personally

[HunterDave]

So is there 17 lakes managed as quality?

According to what I found on SRD site anyway. Surprisingly, the link for the page with that info that I posted is now invalid. I'll try again.

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/ManagingPrograms/FishWildlifeManagement/FisheriesManagement/Default.aspx

Click on "High Quality Stocked Trout Waters that are easy to access" under "Updates"

READILY-ACCESSIBLE STOCKED TROUT WATERS MANAGED FOR HIGH-QUALITY OBJECTIVES
WATERBODY UNIT LIMIT SIZE BAIT CLOSURES
Bullshead PP1 1 > 50 cm Bait Ban Nov 1 - Mar 31
Police (Outpost) PP1 1 > 50 cm Bait Ban Nov 1 - Mar 31
Kerbe's PP2 1 > 50 cm Bait Ban Dec 1 - Mar 31
Muir PP2 1 > 50 cm Bait Ban Nov 1 - Apr 30
Champion ES1 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Muskiki ES2 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Beaver ES2 1/1 > 40 cm & < 40 cm Bait Ban Dec 1 - Mar 31
Fiesta ES2 0 N/A Bait Ban Nov 1 - Apr 15
Ironside ES2 0 N/A Bait Ban Nov 1 - Apr 15
Silkstone ES2 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Lovett ES3 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Pit 24 ES3 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Pit 35 ES3 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Pit 45 ES3 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Lower Pierre Grey's ES4 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Figure 8 NB3 5 N/A Bait Allowed Open
Sulphur NB3 5 N/A Bait Allowed Open

[goldscud]

Does anyone know if any of these lakes besides Muir and Beaver have any fish over 20"?
Bullshead...lots of 16-18", few over 20"
Beaver used to have quite a few, but not recently.
Sounds like Muir has some.
Majority of fish at Police are under 20"...maybe after this growing season some fish will get to 20".
Did Kerbe's winterkill again?
Champion is tiny and only gets 300 fish per year.
Catch and release lakes (low stocking) by Rocky should be getting close
What about the others?

[DuckBrat]

17 of lets say 300 Trout fisheries =5.6%, Alberta Wide-661,848 square kilometers

Manitoba's Parkland Area 32,000 Square KM's 20 of 43 fisheries in one small area managed for trophy trout experience. 20/43=46%


Yes I know Manitoba has more lakes but Wow we are lacking of good trout Management.

We definitely have disconnect forming between the demographics as the fear builds towards the Fly fishing community. What's to fear? For the most part this group tends to be more geared toward conservation, sustainability, sharing, C&R, and low impact (less litter) usage. How many fisheries that have been improved had someone with Flyfishing roots involved? Many.

Once again a limited harvest can be had for those that absolutely love the taste of slough trout.


I loved the settling for Hot dogs and a Pilsner comment earlier in this thread because that is exactly what some are all about here. Sad how even good/proven change can make people fearful.

Done.

[chubbdarter]

17 of lets say 300 Trout fisheries =5.6%, Alberta Wide-661,848 square kilometers

Manitoba's Parkland Area 32,000 Square KM's 20 of 43 fisheries in one small area managed for trophy trout experience. 20/43=46%


Yes I know Manitoba has more lakes but Wow we are lacking of good trout Management.

We definitely have disconnect forming between the demographics as the fear builds towards the Fly fishing community. What's to fear? For the most part this group tends to be more geared toward conservation, sustainability, sharing, C&R, and low impact (less litter) usage. How many fisheries that have been improved had someone with Flyfishing roots involved? Many.

Once again a limited harvest can be had for those that absolutely love the taste of slough trout.


I loved the settling for Hot dogs and a Pilsner comment earlier in this thread because that is exactly what some are all about here. Sad how even good/proven change can make people fearful.

Done.


hahahahhaahaha im a flyfisher TOO, with that said most of them break down this way.....60 percent cant catch a big fish if their life depended on it....20 percent are nose in air better than the rest....10 percent wouldnt stop to help a kid learn jack crap about fishing....the last 10 percent are good guys , know their stuff and are approach-able.

I fear no Fly fisherman!!!!!!!!!!!!!
as ive stated many times i fear for the ones who dont entertain themselfs on the internet.....or a 3 year old that sits on the bank waiting for the bobber to dip.

now im informed there are 17 lakes in Alberta under quality regulations.....and not one person has spoken up to say IT WORKED!.....how is that proven?

Im done with this thread if people cant understand simple fact...Im fighting for the traditional graduation of the life of a fisherman.....some people seem to forget their apprenticeship to where they are now.....but ya thats the world now....forget the ones you leave behind because youve reached your destination. Thats a great example

[HunterDave]

17 of lets say 300 Trout fisheries =5.6%, Alberta Wide-661,848 square kilometers

Manitoba's Parkland Area 32,000 Square KM's 20 of 43 fisheries in one small area managed for trophy trout experience. 20/43=46%

Nice how you only used a small number of lakes in Manitoba verses all of the trout lakes in Alberta in order to come up with a disproportionate percentage. ;)

Shoot, why didn't you just use the 20 lakes that you selected and say 100% of the lakes are trophy lakes? :sad0020: I bet that I can pick an area in Manitoba with 43 lakes that doesn't have a single trout lake, let alone a "quality" one, amongst them. So what? :confused0024: Would that be some sort of proof that in comparison we have too many lakes classed as "quality" fisheries. :lol:

Okay, now that I have nailed down the facts for you fellas about how many "quality" lakes there are in Alberta, and it wasn't 2, does anyone want to do a count of the number of C&R lakes and add them to the total number of "quality" lakes? :)

[DuckBrat]

forget the ones you leave behind because youve reached your destination.

Sorry but no one is leaving anybody behind by creating quality fisheries that will provide more incredible memories than the 6" inch trout pond.

[DuckBrat]

Nice how you only used a small number of lakes in Manitoba verses all of the trout lakes in Alberta in order to come up with a disproportionate percentage. ;)


Good point but there is a method to my madness. I have fished these areas and have experienced them first hand giving me the ability to accurately comment on them. Had I included the other areas of Manitoba that I have not been able to visit as of yet I would be posting inaccurately. As well it may have also been done to prove a point. If one small area could support that many quality fisheries why do we have so little in our large province. I hope this clarifies, I should have explained that prior, my apologies. It's pretty clear now however. Out.

[Bigtoad]

According to what I found on SRD site anyway. Surprisingly, the link for the page with that info that I posted is now invalid. I'll try again.

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/ManagingPrograms/FishWildlifeManagement/FisheriesManagement/Default.aspx

Click on "High Quality Stocked Trout Waters that are easy to access" under "Updates"

READILY-ACCESSIBLE STOCKED TROUT WATERS MANAGED FOR HIGH-QUALITY OBJECTIVES
WATERBODY UNIT LIMIT SIZE BAIT CLOSURES
Bullshead PP1 1 > 50 cm Bait Ban Nov 1 - Mar 31
Police (Outpost) PP1 1 > 50 cm Bait Ban Nov 1 - Mar 31
Kerbe's PP2 1 > 50 cm Bait Ban Dec 1 - Mar 31
Muir PP2 1 > 50 cm Bait Ban Nov 1 - Apr 30
Champion ES1 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Muskiki ES2 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Beaver ES2 1/1 > 40 cm & < 40 cm Bait Ban Dec 1 - Mar 31
Fiesta ES2 0 N/A Bait Ban Nov 1 - Apr 15
Ironside ES2 0 N/A Bait Ban Nov 1 - Apr 15
Silkstone ES2 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Lovett ES3 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Pit 24 ES3 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Pit 35 ES3 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Pit 45 ES3 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Lower Pierre Grey's ES4 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Figure 8 NB3 5 N/A Bait Allowed Open
Sulphur NB3 5 N/A Bait Allowed Open

I must have been looking at an older pdf file on the SRD site when I quoted around 10. I think a few have been added just recently. Thanks for the updated info HunterDave.

I know it's been said, but I really like the 1 under 18" reg which none of the above have. Still allows the possibility of biggins' but lets you take a nice pan-sized one home at the end of the day. I realize not all lakes could be done this way but it would be nice if they tried it. I think Beaver would be a great candidate as it is already one over and one under. Just take off the one over. The overall size has been really deteriorating and just tweeking the regs a bit could have fantastic results IMHO. And it's already got special regs so I don't think there would be a huge public outcry like there would be if Strubel was changed.

Cheers.

[HunterDave]

Good point but there is a method to my madness. I have fished these areas and have experienced them first hand giving me the ability to accurately comment on them. Had I included the other areas of Manitoba that I have not been able to visit as of yet I would be posting inaccurately. As well it may have also been done to prove a point. If one small area could support that many quality fisheries why do we have so little in our large province. I hope this clarifies, I should have explained that prior, my apologies. It's pretty clear now however. Out.

So you've fished all 300 trout lakes in Alberta then cuz you commented on them? It still makes no sense to me. :confused:

[goldscud]

It's interesting that the number of guys using spin rods is about the same as fly rods at Bullshead. Everyone squealed when the regs were introduced...and then the next year there was 200+ people there on opening morning. Tons of families there with little kids catching some very nice fish. I can't see how anyone was excluded...except those unwilling to change from bait to a non-bait lure for their spinning rod.

[chubbdarter]

It's interesting that the number of guys using spin rods is about the same as fly rods at Bullshead. Everyone squealed when the regs were introduced...and then the next year there was 200+ people there on opening morning. Tons of families there with little kids catching some very nice fish. I can't see how anyone was excluded...except those unwilling to change from bait to a non-bait lure for their spinning rod.

im not going to argue, im happy your kids are or were really gifted....my kids at 3-4 couldnt cast well or safely....in fact all they could do was reel in.
Dave is doing really well arguing for the B side......I have yet to see 1 person say the quality fishery has worked to their satisfation.

[Sundancefisher]

i agree Sun....there is a good chance the bug catching, bird watching choco eating kid who chucks lead will become a flyfisherman some day....but every kid deserves that piece of his or her life....its cog in the gear that makes us fisherman.
im not in total agreement with your easier statement....i hope your not saying flyfishing is a government regulation to conserve fish...because if thats a fact....i want flyfishing banned and only single spin reels and 15 foot noodle rods be used.
Even float fishing taken to the extreme is a real science.
In the end im not totally against your proposal.
But i fear more people will suffer than benifit....and i mean the people who dont entertain themselfs on the internet and children who fish.
Yes i know people say the kids can change techniques and some will. But the bobber and worm is highly effective in a highly stocked pond. Some families have limited time and very limited budgets.
All i ask is dont Rail road this proposal so it becomes the standard for regulations.....Remember the average joe fisherman please.

LOL

I may seem more of an anomaly to you for a variety of reasons:snapoutofit:...but as someone who fishes to catch fish...I know for a fact...some days bait fishing catches more...other days fly fishing catches more...and other days spin fishing catches more. I am not say one is better than the other...but from a challenge perspective...matching natures hatches or mimicking natures bugs etc. can be more challenging that eliciting an aggressive response strike on a spinner or spoon etc.

I don't think you should fear a loss of value to recreational fishing for kids nor adults. The chances of catching trout will increase as well as the entertainment value in some larger fish that will fight more. Realize also that this occurs only on those lakes with special regs. The standard put and take lakes will likely always exist if there is a market for it. That market is for guys like you, your neighbour, others on AOF etc. Not for any one guy posting too much.

I am a Joe Fisherman. I am also very versatile in how I fish. Therefore I value that option for everyone. I have my kids using spinning gear and trying fly fishing if they like. I also raise my own mealworms in the basement...so I am not a fanatical bait fisherman, spin fisherman or fly fisherman.

I should say however that flies and a bobber at Bullheads is cheaper than buying worms (unless you dig em up like I do :)) Also I would bet flies and bobber catch more than a bait rig in the long run. At least in my years of experience.

The majority of people want better opportunities to catch fish...not make fishing worse. Those that voted on this poll strongly suggests that and I hope F&W takes the time to make fishing better.

[Don Andersen]

Guys,

Sorry the Govt mislead you. Calling a lake Quality is true only if it is. Just proposing a regulation change hardly means that it will happen.

So far, Beaver was a QLF and is no longer.
Ironside still is for the moment - that may be over this summer.
Muir maybe
Fiesta is not and will not become a QLF under present stocking numbers

Others not yet if ever.

Just call a lake a Quality Fishery means that the biologists do what is required to get it to the Quality status and keep it there. So far of the lakes proposed, the record isn't good.


Don

[chubbdarter]

LOL

I may seem more of an anomaly to you for a variety of reasons:snapoutofit:...but as someone who fishes to catch fish...I know for a fact...some days bait fishing catches more...other days fly fishing catches more...and other days spin fishing catches more. I am not say one is better than the other...but from a challenge perspective...matching natures hatches or mimicking natures bugs etc. can be more challenging that eliciting an aggressive response strike on a spinner or spoon etc.

I don't think you should fear a loss of value to recreational fishing for kids nor adults. The chances of catching trout will increase as well as the entertainment value in some larger fish that will fight more. Realize also that this occurs only on those lakes with special regs. The standard put and take lakes will likely always exist if there is a market for it. That market is for guys like you, your neighbour, others on AOF etc. Not for any one guy posting too much.

I am a Joe Fisherman. I am also very versatile in how I fish. Therefore I value that option for everyone. I have my kids using spinning gear and trying fly fishing if they like. I also raise my own mealworms in the basement...so I am not a fanatical bait fisherman, spin fisherman or fly fisherman.

I should say however that flies and a bobber at Bullheads is cheaper than buying worms (unless you dig em up like I do :)) Also I would bet flies and bobber catch more than a bait rig in the long run. At least in my years of experience.

The majority of people want better opportunities to catch fish...not make fishing worse. Those that voted on this poll strongly suggests that and I hope F&W takes the time to make fishing better.


lol...back at you

simply answer these questions please....with simple answers...no books please
are the 17 lakes now in place working?
if not -is it not fair to ask until you develope a system that makes those 17 work... you just cant have anymore?
and if you say they are now quality fisheries, how many more do you want?

[Sundancefisher]

im not going to argue, im happy your kids are or were really gifted....my kids at 3-4 couldnt cast well or safely....in fact all they could do was reel in.
Dave is doing really well arguing for the B side......I have yet to see 1 person say the quality fishery has worked to their satisfation.

I fished Bullshead when the regs were implemented. The numbers of fish were greatly improved as was the sizes. I could of harvested my 1 over 20 inches but I was just happy catching fish all day.

Understanding that new ideas take tweaking...F&W needs to control their stocking rates better. They have tended to over stock. When that happens...growth rates are reduced. Once F&W get that right...they all will benefit.

But yes...I have fished Bullshead and it has been a hit with everyone that I have talked to. Probably 20 one day fishing alone.

I have also fished Champion. Unfortunately very small and prone to poaching. I did well and was happy with the results. I am waiting to fish Police this year.

I think maybe people simply missed your question but I have seen many threads on AOF and another forum with many raving about Bullshead. I have not followed Muir as much as I have not fished it. But I have also heard great things. I thought this or the other thread attested to that fact.

Cheers

Sun

[Sundancefisher]

Guys,

Sorry the Govt mislead you. Calling a lake Quality is true only if it is. Just proposing a regulation change hardly means that it will happen.

So far, Beaver was a QLF and is no longer.
Ironside still is for the moment - that may be over this summer.
Muir maybe
Fiesta is not and will not become a QLF under present stocking numbers

Others not yet if ever.

Just call a lake a Quality Fishery means that the biologists do what is required to get it to the Quality status and keep it there. So far of the lakes proposed, the record isn't good.


Don

Just so you are not confusing people...your big concern with why this is not working is?

Stocking rates too high?

[Sundancefisher]

lol...back at you

simply answer these questions please....with simple answers...no books please
are the 17 lakes now in place working?
if not -is it not fair to ask until you develope a system that makes those 17 work... you just cant have anymore?
and if you say they are now quality fisheries, how many more do you want?

They work...but F&W have to stop over stocking. That is the reason why 1 in a million trout will grow bigger than 14 inches before harvest at a put and take lake. Even if they beat the odds and survived...they can't grow much due to lack of food.

It is a simple variable to fix and we have to realize that. Tweaking is required. There is no major hurdle to overcome.

[chubbdarter]

They work...but F&W have to stop over stocking. That is the reason why 1 in a million trout will grow bigger than 14 inches before harvest at a put and take lake. Even if they beat the odds and survived...they can't grow much due to lack of food.

It is a simple variable to fix and we have to realize that. Tweaking is required. There is no major hurdle to overcome.

so your answer yes comes with a 'BUT'

okay so really what your proposing is reduce the stocking rate in the 17 lakes now listed as quality?
then once this is proven to work...you would like to increase the amount of lakes under the quality fishery classification.

I wish i understood the simplicity of your proposal...because im all for it....dump the extra fish normally dumped into a quality classed lake into a kids pond....everyone wins

[pope]

Anyone know who and how they determine the stocking rates in the Rocky area?

[HunterDave]

Anyone know who and how they determine the stocking rates in the Rocky area?

The SRD biologists figure it out by throwing darts at a board. :)

[huntin'fool]

Guys,

Sorry the Govt mislead you. Calling a lake Quality is true only if it is. Just proposing a regulation change hardly means that it will happen.

So far, Beaver was a QLF and is no longer.
Ironside still is for the moment - that may be over this summer.
Muir maybe
Fiesta is not and will not become a QLF under present stocking numbers

Others not yet if ever.

Just call a lake a Quality Fishery means that the biologists do what is required to get it to the Quality status and keep it there. So far of the lakes proposed, the record isn't good.


Don

I like the comment, Don - calling a lake Quality is true only if it is...how true. Regulations will do nothing for an overstocked lake with limited food supplies.

To add to the current status of lakes.
Pit 24, 35, and 45 do hold some good trout and stocking rates are more along the lines of proper management. The thing is though, is these lakes are brand new to the public angling population. These lake are reclaimed mine pits and only last year were opened for angling. These types of regulations are what is going to be implemented for the next batch of new lakes opening up on coal valley - the fish guy in Edson told me so.

But these are new lakes, we're not getting any of our old haunts back that used to hold averages of 3 - 4 lbs.

It seems that the govt is scared of changing things but dont mind implementing these types of "quality" regs on new lakes...now the folks who like to eat the freshly stocked trout cant complain as these lakes have never been open to them in the first place. Now this tells us something....the govt realizes there is a demand and need for these lakes, otherwise why bother?

Also, Muskiki - not a quality lake. Reason?? Lack of enforcement... Reason?? Provincial Parks and Recreation. I would be surprised if anyone in the Edson district has even heard of Muskiki Lake. I fish there, have reported several guys coming off the lake with stringers of cutties. The F&W guys in Edson say they will pass it on to Tourism, Parks and Recreation. Never hear back.....


I digressssssss...........

[HunterDave]

But these are new lakes, we're not getting any of our old haunts back that used to hold averages of 3 - 4 lbs.

It seems that the govt is scared of changing things but dont mind implementing these types of "quality" regs on new lakes...now the folks who like to eat the freshly stocked trout cant complain as these lakes have never been open to them in the first place. Now this tells us something....the govt realizes there is a demand and need for these lakes, otherwise why bother?

The SRD's position is to not create "quality" fisheries in currently existing stocked trout lakes however they don't mind doing it in new bodies of water. I have no problem with that at all but I'll betcha some "quality" fishery fellas will because it's too far, too hard to get to :sign0023: To the mines with ya you whiny buggers! :lol:

[goldscud]

They dropped the stocking rate at Bullshead from 75,000 down to 30,000. That frees up some stocking resources.
I believe the stocking rate is/will be reduced at Police outpost as well.

[DuckBrat]

So you've fished all 300 trout lakes in Alberta then cuz you commented on them? It still makes no sense to me. :confused:

Yes, very close to all of them sir, almost all of them in two summers of work actually, thanks. Now to fish those new coal pits this spring. Just an observation but I thought you were done 5 posts ago. If anything your passionate about Status Quo, good on you.

[chubbdarter]

Yes, very close to all of them sir, almost all of them in two summers of work actually, thanks. Now to fish those new coal pits this spring. Just an observation but I thought you were done 5 posts ago. If anything your passionate about Status Quo, good on you.

not to side track the discussion but you said you were done one page ago also in post #169.
no one is ever done lol....just need a recess break

[DuckBrat]

not to side track the discussion but you said you were done one page ago also in post #169.
no one is ever done lol....just need a recess break

Ahhh, I see the miscommunication. Done for that post not for the thread but good eye.

Recess so much simpler of a time.

My dream consists of an Alberta Stocked Trout Fishery that is Managed for Quality. We could start at a ratio of 50:50 (1/2 Meat to 1/2 Trophy fisheries), prove to you how good it could be, and go form there. Out.

[HunterDave]

Yes, very close to all of them sir, almost all of them in two summers of work actually, thanks. Now to fish those new coal pits this spring. Just an observation but I thought you were done 5 posts ago. If anything your passionate about Status Quo, good on you.

Well, good on you. I'll bet that there's a few dugouts around here that you haven't fished yet though. :sHa_sarcasticlol:

[Sundancefisher]

so your answer yes comes with a 'BUT'

okay so really what your proposing is reduce the stocking rate in the 17 lakes now listed as quality?
then once this is proven to work...you would like to increase the amount of lakes under the quality fishery classification.

I wish i understood the simplicity of your proposal...because im all for it....dump the extra fish normally dumped into a quality classed lake into a kids pond....everyone wins

Let me try and simplify how I see your position.

If there were reasonable numbers of trout to harvest but over a certain size, and ice fishing was allowed would you care if all lakes had regulations limiting to harvest over a certain size whether that is 1 or 2 over 16 inches or 20 inches?

Maybe some quality lakes should allow some ice fishing at least to see if it is a problem. Bait fishing is harder as it does have much higher catch and release mortality.

[HunterDave]

Maybe some quality lakes should allow some ice fishing at least to see if it is a problem. Bait fishing is harder as it does have much higher catch and release mortality.

It looks to me that some quality lakes are already open for icefishing. How come all of this information is going unnoticed by everyone that wants more "quality" fisheries? :confused0024:

READILY-ACCESSIBLE STOCKED TROUT WATERS MANAGED FOR HIGH-QUALITY OBJECTIVES
WATERBODY UNIT LIMIT SIZE BAIT CLOSURES
Bullshead PP1 1 > 50 cm Bait Ban Nov 1 - Mar 31
Police (Outpost) PP1 1 > 50 cm Bait Ban Nov 1 - Mar 31
Kerbe's PP2 1 > 50 cm Bait Ban Dec 1 - Mar 31
Muir PP2 1 > 50 cm Bait Ban Nov 1 - Apr 30
Champion ES1 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Muskiki ES2 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Beaver ES2 1/1 > 40 cm & < 40 cm Bait Ban Dec 1 - Mar 31
Fiesta ES2 0 N/A Bait Ban Nov 1 - Apr 15
Ironside ES2 0 N/A Bait Ban Nov 1 - Apr 15
Silkstone ES2 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Lovett ES3 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Pit 24 ES3 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Pit 35 ES3 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Pit 45 ES3 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Lower Pierre Grey's ES4 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Figure 8 NB3 5 N/A Bait Allowed Open
Sulphur NB3 5 N/A Bait Allowed Open

[HunterDave]

Okay, now that I have nailed down the facts for you fellas about how many "quality" lakes there are in Alberta, and it wasn't 2, does anyone want to do a count of the number of C&R lakes and add them to the total number of "quality" lakes? :)

How come no one wants to touch this one? :)

[chubbdarter]

How come no one wants to touch this one? :)

Cuz the debate is over....you win!!!!! and because my name was next to yours in another thread....I WIN TOO.
nah nah nah nah hey hey hey goodbye
We are the champions of the world.
Congrats to you and me....were going to disney land

[pikester]

Very interesting p.o.v. here on this volatile subject! Just an idea, only thought about this while reading Don Anderson's last post. Let's just say that we made sure that several stocky ponds close to major populations stayed put & take while several less "accessable" lakes/ponds were deemed minimal stock, special C & R regulation fisheries. The amount of money going toward stocking would theoretically stay the same as is now. Could this not mean that by maintaining the same level of funding into the stocking program but reducing the # of waterbodies to stock, we could effectively increase the # of fish dumped into these remaining put & take fisheries thereby increasing the opportunity for people's kids to have high catch rates at a nearby location all season while giving us trophy hunters more water to ply our trade on?

Obviously I realise that any given waterbody can only sustain so many fish at a time but maybe having the money & hatchery fish available could mean 2 or possibly 3 stockings per put & take waterbody per year instead of just in the spring?

Just my 2 cents ;)

[Bigtoad]

Congrats to you and me....were going to disney land

I think you're already there Chubb.... at least a place much like it. Something along the lines of "only in your dreams...."

Perhaps we're just taking a break... it's hard work butting your head up against a brick wall (that wall is your thick head by the way:snapoutofit:). For only 10 votes out of 160, you're sure a vocal bunch.

God help us.

[chubbdarter]

I think you're already there Chubb.... at least a place much like it. Something along the lines of "only in your dreams...."

Perhaps we're just taking a break... it's hard work butting your head up against a brick wall (that wall is your thick head by the way:snapoutofit:). For only 10 votes out of 160, you're sure a vocal bunch.

God help us.


hahhahahahahah i love the name calling...actually when the name calling starts im sure we are winning

[HunterDave]

Let's just say that we made sure that several stocky ponds close to major populations stayed put & take while several less "accessable" lakes/ponds were deemed minimal stock, special C & R regulation fisheries. The amount of money going toward stocking would theoretically stay the same as is now. Could this not mean that by maintaining the same level of funding into the stocking program but reducing the # of waterbodies to stock, we could effectively increase the # of fish dumped into these remaining put & take fisheries thereby increasing the opportunity for people's kids to have high catch rates at a nearby location all season while giving us trophy hunters more water to ply our trade on?

Some people might say that is the way that it is now.

There are currently 28 stocked trout lakes in Alberta that are either "quality" fisheries or C&R, plus the 30 rivers/streams on the eastern slopes that are C&R, plus the new "quality" fishery mine pits that SRD are opening up. Is that not enough to satisfy the trophy anglers? If not, how much is enough...........everything?

If you live in Calgary and you want easy to catch big fish then what is the problem with going to Bullshead? Is it too far or what? :confused0024:

IMO if you add in the stocked lakes that currently hold bigger fish, like the ones that I fish in, there is ample opportunity for everyone to catch big fish. :)

[HunterDave]

Both of you guys are hilarious. :lol:

[HunterDave]

For only 10 votes out of 160, you're sure a vocal bunch.

God help us.

There's actually 11. I changed my vote from 3 x 16" trout once I figured out that there were bigger than 12" trout in the lake that I could catch. :) Ya see, that way I can catch a big fish and put it back but keep 5 eatin' sized ones if I wanted to. Someone else might want to keep 5 x 16" sized ones but I don't think that they taste as good. :)

[chubbdarter]

i forgot to vote....any suggestions?

[HunterDave]

i forgot to vote....any suggestions?

Limit of 5 with a good chance of catching 30" trout. :sHa_sarcasticlol:

[Bigtoad]

i forgot to vote....any suggestions?

I have a "suggestion" but it's not on how you vote...:sHa_shakeshout:

Anywhoooo...... HunterDave, I think the issue is that by looking at special regs on our streams (the Bow, North Ram, etc, you can see what a difference they make). You can not tell me that fishing on the Bow would be as good or as much fun if there weren't 20"+ fish in there, and a lot of them. We want similar experiences on stillwater fisheries as well.

And NO, bullshead is not enough... there are over a million people in Calgary and many, many fishermen. It's not enough.

And the lakes that you do regularly catch 20" fish, you better guard them like the holy grail, because there will be less and less isolated lakes and more and more fishermen. My guess is that in 5 years you will be back on this forum complaining that the places you used to be able to catch bigger fish and find a little solitude, are not nearly what they used to be. That is of course, unless more restrictive regs and better stocking rates are implemented on MANY more waterbodies (no, not all...relax) to better reflect the growing number of anglers and the concerns of those anglers.

And let me again attempt to tackle the "easier" question that you keep bringing up. I love fishing the North Raven River. I love flyfishing there because it is a fantastic challenge. Even though there are a lot of fish in there, and many, many big fish, you can't go there expecting to catch one of them. I've been skunked a few times (usually really early in the year) but I've also experienced some phenomenal fishing days with several fish over 20" on the dry. I prefer the flyrod there because it just adds to the challenge. If it wasn't so difficult or as technical of a fishery and had lots of tiny fish, I wouldn't love going there nearly as much. With the amount of fishing pressure it gets, I know I'm not alone.

Same thing goes for lakes. It's easy catching 5 little hatchery fish that have just been stocked. Heck, I could probably just tie a fly that looks like the fish pellets they feed them and have a hay-day catching everything in sight. However, for there to be much sport in it, then there does need to be a chance of catching a big fish. The old saying, "they don't get big by being stupid," is true in most lakes. Catching a big fish isn't just about its size but about the challenge of not only hooking it, but in trying to get the beast to the boat as well. If anything, I don't want easier fishing, I want more difficult fishing (at least for the larger ones. If there are still some stocked yearly, there should still be some push-over fish for kids and beginners to get into).

Fishing is a "sport" still right? Maybe you like to play hockey against a bunch of kids and call that sport, but I don't. Maybe you like to go fishing just to fill your freezer, but again, that's not sport; that's subsidizing your grocery bill (although it would be much cheaper just to buy 5 fish from your grocery store).

You talk about how great the Bow is but then when someone wants a similar experience on a lake, suddenly it's a big deal? I don't get it. Unless of course, you don't think the Bow is that great of a fishery, in which case, enjoy Disneyland!

Cheers.

[pikester]

Some people might say that is the way that it is now.

There are currently 28 stocked trout lakes in Alberta that are either "quality" fisheries or C&R, plus the 30 rivers/streams on the eastern slopes that are C&R, plus the new "quality" fishery mine pits that SRD are opening up. Is that not enough to satisfy the trophy anglers? If not, how much is enough...........everything?

If you live in Calgary and you want easy to catch big fish then what is the problem with going to Bullshead? Is it too far or what? :confused0024:

IMO if you add in the stocked lakes that currently hold bigger fish, like the ones that I fish in, there is ample opportunity for everyone to catch big fish. :)

As has been mentioned before, just because Fisheries slaps a "quality fishery" tag on a waterbody does not mean it is. As for your question yes, for me Bullshead is a little far to go for an afternoon of flyfishing. Might do it once or twice a season but that's about it. One of my favourite place to fish used to be North Raven River but it's a 3+ hr trip for me now so I don't go there very often either. Don't worry about me anyway, I have a lot of fun catching trophy sized trout in the Bow so it's not as burning an issue for me as it is for some guys here, but it would be nice to have more than 1 or 2 options to regularly fish a sizable population of trophy sized trout on stillwaters within 2hrs of Strathmore, Red Deer, etc.

[HunterDave]

And the lakes that you do regularly catch 20" fish, you better guard them like the holy grail, because there will be less and less isolated lakes and more and more fishermen. My guess is that in 5 years you will be back on this forum complaining that the places you used to be able to catch bigger fish and find a little solitude, are not nearly what they used to be. That is of course, unless more restrictive regs and better stocking rates are implemented on MANY more waterbodies (no, not all...relax) to better reflect the growing number of anglers and the concerns of those anglers.

The lakes that I fish in are not a big secret to people. IMO The reason that they are as good as they are is because allot of anglers are just too lazy to go out of their way to fish them. If you don't want to drive 2 hours to get to one of them then that's your problem. I can't see that attitude changing anytime soon so I figure that 5 years from now the lakes will still be the same as they are today.

Just to clarify about the lakes that I fish. I don't catch a 20" trout everytime I catch a fish, like in a "quality" lake. I might catch only eatin sized ones one day, a dozen 16" sized the next, a mix the next and nothing, yet the next. Every once in awhile I might catch a 20" trout which is something special to me. :sHa_shakeshout:

Like someone mentioned in an earlier post, catching allot of 20" fish all of the time gets real old real fast. I figure that the only way of curing people of this "big fish all of the time only" syndrome is for you to go somewhere where you can do it and keep you there until you're sick of catching them. After the thrill has worn off a bit then you wouldn't mind going out to fish just for the enjoyment of fishing, regardless of what size of fish you catch. :)

[Bigtoad]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I don't go to the North Raven and expect to catch a 20" fish every time. It's true, it would get boring if I knew I was going to catch several big fish every time, especially if they're dumb fish. I go because of the challenge and part of that challenge is the potential to catch a monster, and a crafty one at that.

Go to Strubel and fish as long as you want, with whatever you want and you're not going to catch one over 20". Apparently it used to have fish to 10lbs so the issue isn't carrying capacity. When the opportunity for a range of sizes isn't there, neither is some of the excitement. Disagree?

And don't hold your breath that a lake 2 hours away won't change. I drive 5hrs to get to a lake with some lunkers but even it has deteriorated over the past couple of years because of the 5 fish limit and more fishing pressure. I could drive 14hrs to Manitoba where they actually know how to manage a fishery but at some point, I do need to draw the line.

I hope it isn't true for your gems.

[Doc]

Just because SRD has tagged a bunch of lakes "quality" lakes, doesn't mean they are. SRD's definition of quality has to be looked at first and foremost. Trout over what, 2 pounds is quality? Not in my books. My definition of quality is 5lbs and up. So a quality lake to me would a good chance at a 5 pounder on any given day with the odd chance of hooking into a 10+ pounder. These lakes are available in BC, Sask and Manitoba so why not here (and the lakes in the parkland region of Manitoba are NOT pay to play BTW). I'm glad that SRD has taken the first step of introducing quality lakes to our province but they need to grow a pair and convert a few of the lakes that get stocked with 40,000+ dinks every spring around major centers to also include the quality regulations. For those that ask why. The same reason you want your put and take lakes, because that's what we are asking for. When Don and the boys started Beaver and then when we did Muir, people got a taste of what could be. Then Bullshead, Police and well now you see the list. Why so many? Because SRD put up a poll and that's what Alberta's anglers wanted to see. Ain't nothing wrong with the Chickakoo's of Alberta but when you see how much pressure is on Muir compared to it, well there's a reason why Muir looks like a bowl of cheerios and Chickakoo sees very little pressure. The problem as I see it now is not enough quality fisheries around major centers, SRD's definition of quality just plain sucks and to have a quality fishery, they actually have to manage it as a quality fishery and not just put some special regs on it and stock the hell out it. They need to actually do some work on them and study the fisheries to see how they can improve them to be optimum fisheries from year to year. How many quality lakes should we have in Alberta? I'd like around 30% but it doesn't really matter until they start managing them properly. Until then, it's all just eye candy.

Here's a video of the Muir Lake Project for those that are interested.
The Muir Lake Project (http://www.albertastillwaters.com/apps/videos/videos/show/6936683-the-muir-lake-project)

[HunterDave]

Go to Strubel and fish as long as you want, with whatever you want and you're not going to catch one over 20". Apparently it used to have fish to 10lbs so the issue isn't carrying capacity. When the opportunity for a range of sizes isn't there, neither is some of the excitement. Disagree?

And don't hold your breath that a lake 2 hours away won't change. I drive 5hrs to get to a lake with some lunkers but even it has deteriorated over the past couple of years because of the 5 fish limit and more fishing pressure. I could drive 14hrs to Manitoba where they actually know how to manage a fishery but at some point, I do need to draw the line.

I generally don't fish lakes like Strubel. There's one like that here in Morinville 3 kms and a few others within 10 kms away that I might go to occasionally after supper but if I'm going for the day, I have other options. I still enjoy it when I go but aren't my first choice.

Your efforts to go fishing is out of the norm IMO. My experience is that allot of fellas won't make that kind of effort. Most anglers that I have met want convenience and as little effort as possible, thus the whole purpose of this thread. :)

[HunterDave]

Just because SRD has tagged a bunch of lakes "quality" lakes, doesn't mean they are. SRD's definition of quality has to be looked at first and foremost. Trout over what, 2 pounds is quality? Not in my books. My definition of quality is 5lbs and up. So a quality lake to me would a good chance at a 5 pounder on any given day with the odd chance of hooking into a 10+ pounder. These lakes are available in BC, Sask and Manitoba so why not here (and the lakes in the parkland region of Manitoba are NOT pay to play BTW). I'm glad that SRD has taken the first step of introducing quality lakes to our province but they need to grow a pair and convert a few of the lakes that get stocked with 40,000+ dinks every spring around major centers to also include the quality regulations. For those that ask why. The same reason you want your put and take lakes, because that's what we are asking for. When Don and the boys started Beaver and then when we did Muir, people got a taste of what could be. Then Bullshead, Police and well now you see the list. Why so many? Because SRD put up a poll and that's what Alberta's anglers wanted to see. Ain't nothing wrong with the Chickakoo's of Alberta but when you see how much pressure is on Muir compared to it, well there's a reason why Muir looks like a bowl of cheerios and Chickakoo sees very little pressure. The problem as I see it now is not enough quality fisheries around major centers, SRD's definition of quality just plain sucks and to have a quality fishery, they actually have to manage it as a quality fishery and not just put some special regs on it and stock the hell out it. They need to actually do some work on them and study the fisheries to see how they can improve them to be optimum fisheries from year to year. How many quality lakes should we have in Alberta? I'd like around 30% but it doesn't really matter until they start managing them properly. Until then, it's all just eye candy.

Here's a video of the Muir Lake Project for those that are interested.
The Muir Lake Project (http://www.albertastillwaters.com/apps/videos/videos/show/6936683-the-muir-lake-project)

SRD defines a "quality" trout fishery as a stocked trout water body with regulations for a large minimum size or C&R regulations aimed at regularly providing larger fish (50 cm or larger). They don't use the weight of the fish.

I am aware of the poll that you are referring to. SRD put up an unadvertised poll on their website for a short period of time. Who do you think knew about the poll let alone answer it? Was it average Joe angler or a bunch of guys belonging to elitist fishing organizations. Even then the support was divided if I recall correctly. SRD recognized this and that is why their documents all read something like: some anglers would like to see "quality" fisheries while the general angler wants harvest opportunities and higher catch rates.

30%! :sign0068: I see that you are from Edmonton. Is there not a "quality" fishery called Muir Lake right outside of town? Why is there a requirement for 30 more lakes (assuming that there are 100 lakes) just like that one within a 200 mile radius of Edmonton when you can already go to Muir for your photo op? Maybe the plan isn't working as expected there, I don't know, but I certainly don't understand why turning 30% of the lakes into "quality" fisheries is required. :confused0024:

[Heron]

I generally don't fish lakes like Strubel. There's one like that here in Morinville 3 kms and a few others within 10 kms away that I might go to occasionally after supper but if I'm going for the day, I have other options. I still enjoy it when I go but aren't my first choice.

Your efforts to go fishing is out of the norm IMO. My experience is that allot of fellas won't make that kind of effort. Most anglers that I have met want convenience and as little effort as possible, thus the whole purpose of this thread. :)

Like some I will travel ridiculous distances for good fishing but why should I put my 8 and 11 year old through that? I want good fishing close to home for my children and myself. I guess that is crazy.

It's almost like a hunter who, as part of his signature is asking for access to a place like say... Strathcona County where he knows there are plenty of deer. Why can"t that hunter just settle for the occasional big deer in his own area?

[Sundancefisher]

Just to clarify about the lakes that I fish. I don't catch a 20" trout everytime I catch a fish, like in a "quality" lake. I might catch only eatin sized ones one day, a dozen 16" sized the next, a mix the next and nothing, yet the next. Every once in awhile I might catch a 20" trout which is something special to me. :sHa_shakeshout:

Like someone mentioned in an earlier post, catching allot of 20" fish all of the time gets real old real fast.

LOL

We all know what you catch cause people are fishing the same waters. No one thought you caught big ones regularly anywheres.

How about instead of catching lots of 9-12 inchers and a special moment of a 20 incher...you catch lots of 17-20 inchers with a special moment of a 25 incher.

What is wrong with that?

I know...they are not small better eating trout and it is probably too easy catching the bigger fish so it is boring and you miss the small ones.

I just don't get the trolling. It is getting old...but still...facinating you keep on given er with the same logic. The important thing is when reading throught the logic...it is hard not to gravitate to the quality fishery side. 5% follow your logic...but 95% want something different. Still it is a close race based upon your zest for typing. I just sincerely hope you keep it up as it helps keep this topic in the front and center. That is what we need in Alberta...discussion followed by change.

IMHO.

[Sundancefisher]

SRD defines a "quality" trout fishery as a stocked trout water body with regulations for a large minimum size or C&R regulations aimed at regularly providing larger fish (50 cm or larger). They don't use the weight of the fish.


I got confused by the posts...about how many quality fisheries there are.

By this definition...is there just not 4 in Alberta then? Over 50 cm limit?

So you are seriously arguing that the 95% voting for better fishing on this poll should be happy with 4 quality lakes in Alberta? That F&W should do nothing to increase the size of trout for anglers?

Dave...there is a reason you did not answer certain questions before...but in almost every post you answer is all the same.

In the end...you don't like changes, you want more trout for yourself at the expense of others and you definitely don't want to improve fishing at your local haunts and risk increasing fishing traffic. Dave...are you really that selfish? :bad_boys_20: Wait...it is a question. You don't like pointed questions...so just respond that you like eating small fish.

:thinking-006:

[Outcast 1100]

i was out at strubel lake a few weeks ago, i seen two nice size fish 3-4lbs, but other than that it many small fish buzzin around. i didnt think it was to bad being i was there for 4 or so hours. been out to dickson trout pond and seen some nice ones too this year, but the water is very murky. there are some nice sized fish around if you can zone in an get there attention.

as far as beaver lake goes it is an excellent lake to fish. my best day last summer is 18 fish, one 20in, six 16in, the rest were 12 and 14in. but i have also been totally skunked there.

Fiesta lake is small, hence the low stocking rates, spotted some decent size trout, caught some small guys. access is walk in only, nice small dock to get into your pontoon boat or whatever you use.

Everybody says the same thing, this lake use to be better. i have talked to old old timers about fishing the ram river 60yrs ago. they use to chase the small ones away with a stick to get after the larger ones. how nice would that be to have such a dilema to deal with.

But anyways back to the topic, its seems to be run more like a business than natural resourse. more fish = more fisherman. more fisherman = more fees, more fees = more money, more money = more fish, and the cycle continues and thats not to mention the other spin offs that there are. its all about the dollar it seems.

So if its harder to catch a 20 inch fish than it is to catch a 12in fish, than a youngster wouldn't stand much of a chance at having fun fishing and getting "hooked" on fishing because it just is to boring to them, they just dont have the attention span yet. so fill the lakes with easy to catch fish, get them addicted to the sport and get the next generation of fisherman off and running and so on and so on.:fighting0030:

[HunterDave]

LOL

We all know what you catch cause people are fishing the same waters. No one thought you caught big ones regularly anywheres.

How about instead of catching lots of 9-12 inchers and a special moment of a 20 incher...you catch lots of 17-20 inchers with a special moment of a 25 incher.

What is wrong with that?

I know...they are not small better eating trout and it is probably too easy catching the bigger fish so it is boring and you miss the small ones.

I just don't get the trolling. It is getting old...but still...facinating you keep on given er with the same logic. The important thing is when reading throught the logic...it is hard not to gravitate to the quality fishery side. 5% follow your logic...but 95% want something different. Still it is a close race based upon your zest for typing. I just sincerely hope you keep it up as it helps keep this topic in the front and center. That is what we need in Alberta...discussion followed by change.

IMHO.

You guys have no idea where I'm fishing if you can't believe what I'm telling you I'm catching. :sHa_sarcasticlol: I've already given up Peanut Lake because they are stopping the stocking program for it and I figure that it'll winter kill anyways. Maybe someone that has fished there will post their experience there but IMO there's no point in hiding it anymore. Besides, do you really think that I, or anyone else, is going to tell you where to fish? :)

I have no problem with keeping a 12" trout to eat and I don't think that anyone should be ashamed of it. It's fellas like you that look down on guys that only keep the eatin sized fish that are the real problem. If you only want to eat bigger ones that's entirely up to you. But you see, that's the attitude that I've been saying all along that is the real problem with why it's harder to catch bigger fish. ATTITUDE AND EDUCATION!!!

Like I said earlier, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read what I post. :fighting0007: If you don't like it then..........:tongue2: As far as trying to influence the poll :sHa_sarcasticlol:, I couldn't care less about it. For one thing, given that it's on a fishing forum the likelihood of having a large number of fishing fanatics is much greater and not IMO representative of the opinion of the average angler. :)

[HunterDave]

I got confused by the posts...about how many quality fisheries there are.

By this definition...is there just not 4 in Alberta then? Over 50 cm limit?

So you are seriously arguing that the 95% voting for better fishing on this poll should be happy with 4 quality lakes in Alberta? That F&W should do nothing to increase the size of trout for anglers?

Dave...there is a reason you did not answer certain questions before...but in almost every post you answer is all the same.

In the end...you don't like changes, you want more trout for yourself at the expense of others and you definitely don't want to improve fishing at your local haunts and risk increasing fishing traffic. Dave...are you really that selfish? :bad_boys_20: Wait...it is a question. You don't like pointed questions...so just respond that you like eating small fish.

:thinking-006:

Yes, I do like eating the smaller fish and leaving the bigger ones in the lake. If you don't then you are the problem. :mad0100: The most unfortunate part about that is that you will pass those beliefs on and thus continue the cycle.

If you don't understand the "quality" fisheries in Alberta why are you asking me? Ask SRD.

As for the rest of your post.................:sad0020:

[Sundancefisher]

Yes, I do like eating the smaller fish and leaving the bigger ones in the lake.

Ha Ha ha :snapoutofit:

You just don't get it. In most lakes...there are not the big fish to release. If that was to ever occur...most people on this thread would probably release the bigger ones...especially if it is a lake they fish regularly. That is why votes are predominantly cast to reflect their desire for larger fish.:sHa_sarcasticlol: One 16 to 20 inch trout out of every 10,000 9 - 12 inchers caught...is not what constitutes good odds.

You just keep circling without listening. Either on purpose for trolling reasons...or you don't really read what folks are posting.

:shark:

but keep up the entertaining posts.

:fighting0074:

[DuckBrat]

River fishing vs Stocked Pond Locally vs Stocked lakes in the foothills.


Apples, oranges, pears

[HunterDave]

One 16 to 20 inch trout out of every 10,000 9 - 12 inchers caught...is not what constitutes good odds.

:47b20s0: Another "quality" fishery fella admits that it's all about making it easy to catch bigger fish! :sHa_shakeshout:

[HunterDave]

River fishing vs Stocked Pond Locally vs Stocked lakes in the foothills.


Apples, oranges, pears

So what's a "quality" fishery? :lol:

[Doc]

SRD defines a "quality" trout fishery as a stocked trout water body with regulations for a large minimum size or C&R regulations aimed at regularly providing larger fish (50 cm or larger). They don't use the weight of the fish.

Just to clear things up a bit on Muir. It was never designed as a quality fishery as SRD defines it. Muir was before the quality fisheries agenda the gov't came up with. Muir was designed to have high catch rates of larger than average trout than most put and take fisheries with the chance of catching a trophy. SRD seems to want the trout to grow up to 50cm but as long as they are bigger than 9 inches they appear to be content. I have fished Muir Lake from May to Oct since we've started the project and although the lake produces larger trout on average than most of the put and take lakes it's not near good enough as I know what it could possibly be producing with the right management and true trophy's are not being caught. If, after stocking, there is enough biomass in a quality lake to produce a majority of 50cm trout with the chance at a real trophy then I would be happy with that. If not, then studies are needed to determine how many trout should be stocked to achieve this goal. Not hearing or seeing many studies done and if there are, we're not seeing a lot of reactive measures being taken by those in charge to improve the quality and enhance the fisheries (at least not in the Edmonton area). So what we're left with is a lot of 2lb to 4lb trout but no 10lb trout like we want. Is that better than spending a day catching a zillion dinks? You betcha but why should we settle for mediocre when we can have great.


30%! :sign0068: I see that you are from Edmonton. Is there not a "quality" fishery called Muir Lake right outside of town? Why is there a requirement for 30 more lakes (assuming that there are 100 lakes) just like that one within a 200 mile radius of Edmonton when you can already go to Muir for your photo op? Maybe the plan isn't working as expected there, I don't know, but I certainly don't understand why turning 30% of the lakes into "quality" fisheries is required. :confused0024:

Why not 30%? How about 40%? Even at 40%, you still have 60% of your mediocre lakes. I want to see one quality lake with browns and one with cutties near Edmonton as well. While we're at it let's change Chickakoo to a quality lake and we'll have lunker brookies too. Still lots of the lakes around Edmonton that have dinks in it for those that want the little fish. Why should I have to drive three hours to find a decent fishery when I can have several in my backyard? Why just be content with Muir? Apparently you aren't just content with Morinville res. for catching the tiddlers. Why should my licensing fees go to stocking 40,000 trout in a fisheries that I have no interest in fishing? The lakes I purpose are cheaper to stock. And to answer your question, Muir does work by SRD's definition but not by mine (although it's still the best lake within two hours of Edmonton). You can see how well it works when you can't find a parking spot on a Sat morning. Guess we just have to build more (and better) so all the minority quality wanters can find a place to park.

*Note: A lot of tongue in cheek here mixed with honesty.

[HunterDave]

Just to clear things up a bit on Muir. It was never designed as a quality fishery as SRD defines it. Muir was before the quality fisheries agenda the gov't came up with. Muir was designed to have high catch rates of larger than average trout than most put and take fisheries with the chance of catching a trophy. SRD seems to want the trout to grow up to 50cm but as long as they are bigger than 9 inches they appear to be content. I have fished Muir Lake from May to Oct since we've started the project and although the lake produces larger trout on average than most of the put and take lakes it's not near good enough as I know what it could possibly be producing with the right management and true trophy's are not being caught. If, after stocking, there is enough biomass in a quality lake to produce a majority of 50cm trout with the chance at a real trophy then I would be happy with that. If not, then studies are needed to determine how many trout should be stocked to achieve this goal. Not hearing or seeing many studies done and if there are, we're not seeing a lot of reactive measures being taken by those in charge to improve the quality and enhance the fisheries (at least not in the Edmonton area). So what we're left with is a lot of 2lb to 4lb trout but no 10lb trout like we want. Is that better than spending a day catching a zillion dinks? You betcha but why should we settle for mediocre when we can have great.



Why not 30%? How about 40%? Even at 40%, you still have 60% of your mediocre lakes. I want to see one quality lake with browns and one with cutties near Edmonton as well. While we're at it let's change Chickakoo to a quality lake and we'll have lunker brookies too. Still lots of the lakes around Edmonton that have dinks in it for those that want the little fish. Why should I have to drive three hours to find a decent fishery when I can have several in my backyard? Why just be content with Muir? Apparently you aren't just content with Morinville res. for catching the tiddlers. Why should my licensing fees go to stocking 40,000 trout in a fisheries that I have no interest in fishing? The lakes I purpose are cheaper to stock. And to answer your question, Muir does work by SRD's definition but not by mine (although it's still the best lake within two hours of Edmonton). You can see how well it works when you can't find a parking spot on a Sat morning. Guess we just have to build more (and better) so all the minority quality wanters can find a place to park.

*Note: A lot of tongue in cheek here mixed with honesty.

So, in summary, the "Quality" fishery at Muir hasn't worked. :cry:

Your post swayed me more towards having more "quality" fisheries in and immediately around the city of Edmonton though. :thinking-006: The way that I figure it is if a few more "quality" fisheries were created then all of the lazy azzed anglers from the city wanting to catch big, easy to catch trout would stay in Edmonton. Then, there'd be fewer anglers at all of the harder to get to lakes. In turn the quality of fishing will improve because we wouldn't have to worry about the city guys coming out and keeping all of the big fish instead of the smaller eatin sized ones! :sHa_shakeshout:

Okay......what if SRD could be talked into digging several dugouts in and around Edmonton and filling them with fish? Would that work for you? :confused0024:

To answer your question about having 30% or 40% of our lakes turned into "quality" fisheries............SRD wouldn't do that for such a small percentage of anglers that want them. If you believe that support for "quality" fisheries is that high then you need to get out more and talk with Joe the average angler. :)

[Doc]

So, in summary, the "Quality" fishery at Muir hasn't worked. :cry:

Your post swayed me more towards having more "quality" fisheries in and immediately around the city of Edmonton though. :thinking-006: The way that I figure it is if a few more "quality" fisheries were created then all of the lazy azzed anglers from the city wanting to catch big, easy to catch trout would stay in Edmonton. Then, there'd be fewer anglers at all of the harder to get to lakes. In turn the quality of fishing will improve because we wouldn't have to worry about the city guys coming out and keeping all of the big fish instead of the smaller eatin sized ones! :sHa_shakeshout:

Okay......what if SRD could be talked into digging several dugouts in and around Edmonton and filling them with fish? Would that work for you? :confused0024:

To answer your question about having 30% or 40% of our lakes turned into "quality" fisheries............SRD wouldn't do that for such a small percentage of anglers that want them. If you believe that support for "quality" fisheries is that high then you need to get out more and talk with Joe the average angler. :)

Explain how it doesn't work?
It's not up to my standards but if it's the busiest stocked lake within two hours of Edmonton, it's definitely working.

I swayed you? Good now go talk to all the average Joes and convince them we need these lakes too and we'll all be happy. Oh, wait but you don't want quality fishing you want easy to catch tiddlers. If we all stayed around Edmonton then you'd be catching to many easy to catch bigger fish! That doesn't work for you remember?

No, I want bigger lakes that are currently 5 trout per day. There are to many of those now. We need to change that.

Oh they'll do it. With the pressure put on them for big fish in the past, they came up with the quality lakes initiative (that was the reason they put the poll out there in the first place). Once the lakes and regs are in place, we will not be happy with just that and we'll put pressure on them for better management. Once the Alberta Angler gets a true taste of what can be, more pressure will be applied for more of these lakes. It'll take a while as SRD is very slow to react (regarding pretty much anything) but it will happen. And you're right, if we get enough quality lakes near major centers, the long to drive to lakes will see less pressure and will be become quality lakes once again themselves. If SRD can manage the stocking numbers accordingly that is.

[HunterDave]

Explain how it doesn't work?
It's not up to my standards but if it's the busiest stocked lake within two hours of Edmonton, it's definitely working.

I swayed you? Good now go talk to all the average Joes and convince them we need these lakes too and we'll all be happy. Oh, wait but you don't want quality fishing you want easy to catch tiddlers. If we all stayed around Edmonton then you'd be catching to many easy to catch bigger fish! That doesn't work for you remember?

No, I want bigger lakes that are currently 5 trout per day. There are to many of those now. We need to change that.

Oh they'll do it. With the pressure put on them for big fish in the past, they came up with the quality lakes initiative (that was the reason they put the poll out there in the first place). Once the lakes and regs are in place, we will not be happy with just that and we'll put pressure on them for better management. Once the Alberta Angler gets a true taste of what can be, more pressure will be applied for more of these lakes. It'll take a while as SRD is very slow to react (regarding pretty much anything) but it will happen. And you're right, if we get enough quality lakes near major centers, the long to drive to lakes will see less pressure and will be become quality lakes once again themselves. If SRD can manage the stocking numbers accordingly that is.

Average Joe angler won't go for changing their favorite lake into a "quality" fishery. Local anglers know what's in the lake already and if a city fella goes there one time and doesn't catch any big fish they are fine with that. They have the ability to go there every day and if they don't catch a big one one day then they'll catch one the next. Why would they want to give that up?

Even if I convinced them that there'd be fewer anglers because they are going to stay at the fish farms created in Edmonton they'd tell me that they didn't care because the city guys don't think that there are big fish in their lake anyway. Just look at the disbelief in this thread when I stated that I was already catching big fish in lakes that arn't "quality" fisheries. I know these guys because I'm one of them. :)

I doubt that SRD will change their current position of not changing anymore stocked lakes to "quality" fisheries......anything is possible, but I highly doubt it. Creating new "quality" fisheries in new bodies of water they will do. It seems to me that they have learned from their mistakes. Case in point Police Lake. Look what they are going through now with the fight to get it back to a regular stocked catch and keep 5 trout lake. I would like to hear from a local down that way when he heard about the "quality" lake resolution sneaking through. :lol: You see, Joe angler likely didn't even know anything about the resolution until it was too late. :)

[Sundancefisher]

:47b20s0: Another "quality" fishery fella admits that it's all about making it easy to catch bigger fish! :sHa_shakeshout:

HELP...you found me out :scared0015:

:fighting0074:

LOL...You admit it is all about catching super easy to catch small fish for you.:sHa_sarcasticlol:

LOL...I admit I'd much rather catch bigger fish.:sHa_shakeshout:

Duhhh....:fighting0030:

Your revelation means....:sign0161::bad_boys_20:

:snapoutofit:

[Sundancefisher]

HunterDave:

Do you consider it greed if your idea of enough means a disproportionate amount going to you when there is not enough for everyone to have an equal share?

[Sundancefisher]

HunterDave

If there is not enough fish in a lake for everyone to get 5 a day...what do you call it when someone demands to keep taking 5?

[Sundancefisher]

HunterDave:

Is it wrong to balance all the user choices out there rather than just cater to one group?

[Sundancefisher]

HunterDave:

Is it a challenge to catch a bigger fish if none are left to catch or is it just a wasted effort versus having regulations that boost the size so that there are actually more around?

Chubdarter...I would be sincerely interested in your responses to these questions since Dave will likely refuse to answer again. At least it can give insight into your point of view on this whole topic. Helps us all to see some common ground.

[chubbdarter]

HunterDave:

Is it a challenge to catch a bigger fish if none are left to catch or is it just a wasted effort versus having regulations that boost the size so that there are actually more around?

Chubdarter...I would be sincerely interested in your responses to these questions since Dave will likely refuse to answer again. At least it can give insight into your point of view on this whole topic. Helps us all to see some common ground.

geebuss Sun
1- i agreed to your program....you stock less in the 17 lakes you already have and dump the extra into regular folk's lakes
2- i had 1 reasonable request...you dont get any more lakes above the 17 till you prove the 17 have been tweaked to a success.

isnt that fair....i kinda thought it was and left the discussion.....i popped in to collect bigtoads name calling posts.

SUN'S ?=Is it a challenge to catch a bigger fish if none are left to catch or is it just a wasted effort versus having regulations that boost the size so that there are actually more around?

CHUBB'S answer=yes its a challenge

[pikester]

A suggestion to Bigtoad; according to your poll most people are DECISIVELY in favour of the "C&R with the chance of catching up to 25" option by nearly 20%. This thread is now up to 8+ pages & has evolved from a healthy debate to an acidic mudslinging arguement between a handful of posters. The majority has spoken by now & no good could come from another week of bickering & name calling; no one from either p.o.v. is likely to change their minds now. I respectfully ask you close this poll before the admins are forced to do so. Thanks for your passionate concern for our fisheries :)

[HunterDave]

HunterDave:

Do you consider it greed if your idea of enough means a disproportionate amount going to you when there is not enough for everyone to have an equal share?

If by "disproportionate" you mean that if I catch more fish than the guy beside me and I keep my limit and he catches none then, no, I don't think that it is greedy at all. I don't consider myself a super ninja angler over the next guy and he has the same chance of catching fish as me. If I catch fish and he doesn't, that's a part of fishing. The next time out maybe the shoe will be on the other foot. :)

[HunterDave]

HunterDave

If there is not enough fish in a lake for everyone to get 5 a day...what do you call it when someone demands to keep taking 5?

I call it common sense. :)

It all comes down to whether or not a fella can catch fish, or doesn't want to put the effort into catching them. If someone can go to a lake and catch 5 fish to eat and another fella can't then that's his problem. So we should put regulations in place to make life easier for the fella that can't catch fish to make it easier for him? :confused0024:

[Bigtoad]

A suggestion to Bigtoad; according to your poll most people are DECISIVELY in favour of the "C&R with the chance of catching up to 25" option by nearly 20%. This thread is now up to 8+ pages & has evolved from a healthy debate to an acidic mudslinging arguement between a handful of posters. The majority has spoken by now & no good could come from another week of bickering & name calling; no one from either p.o.v. is likely to change their minds now. I respectfully ask you close this poll before the admins are forced to do so. Thanks for your passionate concern for our fisheries :)

You're probably right but:
1. I'm hoping that there will be more people that vote because generally, the larger the sample, the more accurate/valid the data. I'm not sure what I'll do with that data or how skewed it is being on an outdoor forum but it might be interesting to pass along to SRD or a regional biologist, just so that they are aware. More votes would help but I agree, I don't the % is going to change much.

2. I am also hoping that we are getting close to the end of anyone having anything left to say; including name calling, and perhaps there are a few folks that haven't been heard to give a few constructive things to say from different sides of the spectrum? I think I'm pretty much done any ranting and raving I have left and will probably sit most of the last bit out in respect to others who haven't shared.

If we continue as we have, with only a few sharing and going in circles, then yes, I'll ask to close the poll. Thanks for your input.

Cheers.

[HunterDave]

HunterDave:

Is it wrong to balance all the user choices out there rather than just cater to one group?

Absolutely not. I think that is what SRD has tried to do that. Some anglers would like to see "quality" fisheries while the general angler wants harvest opportunities and higher catch rates. An individual's perception of what is balanced is relative, or not. I don't think that changing 30% of existing stocked lakes into "quality" fisheries in order to please 10% (I think that I'm being generous with that figure) of the fishing community is balanced. :)

[HunterDave]

HunterDave:

Is it a challenge to catch a bigger fish if none are left to catch or is it just a wasted effort versus having regulations that boost the size so that there are actually more around?

Well, given that scenario, I'd have to say that it'd be as much of a waste of effort trying to catch a big fish where there aren't any as trying to catch a small fish in a lake where there aren't any. I can't say that it would be a waste of time if you enjoy the outdoors though. If you want to start a "quality" fishery in a dead lake or a newly formed body of water (ie mine pits) then I say go for it. :)

[Bigtoad]

If I could be so bold as to try and summarize what loose "facts" we have acquired so far from the poll as well as the discussion. (I'll try to keep my own bias out of it):

1. There are a wide variety of angler choices on the matter of quality vs. quantity.

2. Most agree that we need a variety of angling choices in Alberta.

3. On this poll, ~75% of anglers value catching larger fish more than taking more fish home.

4. On this poll, ~25% of anglers value taking more fish home than catching larger fish.

5. Most that value quality, want:
- more quality lakes in Alberta
- better management of the lakes that do exist (ie. stocking rates, harvest rates, a better definition of quality lakes, etc)
- several places that one could have the opportunity of catching a trophy fish that is relatively close to major centers (Too much variance in what "trophy" or "quality" mean to really nail that down for everyone. Somewhere between 4 and 10lbs+ I would imagine).
- SRD to get their heads out of their.... (Ooops.... couldn't resist.:snapoutofit:) Back to the facts:

6. Most that value quantity want:
- to make sure there are still lots of lakes that they can keep 3-5 fish of any size, ice fish, and use bait, that are also relatively close to major centers.
- That fish will be relatively easy to catch to appeal to a family fishing experience.

Did I miss anything? Seems reasonable to me.

Anyone else, beside the 4 or 5 of us regular whiners... I mean posters, with anything constructive to add?

Cheers.

[HunterDave]

A suggestion to Bigtoad; according to your poll most people are DECISIVELY in favour of the "C&R with the chance of catching up to 25" option by nearly 20%. This thread is now up to 8+ pages & has evolved from a healthy debate to an acidic mudslinging arguement between a handful of posters. The majority has spoken by now & no good could come from another week of bickering & name calling; no one from either p.o.v. is likely to change their minds now. I respectfully ask you close this poll before the admins are forced to do so. Thanks for your passionate concern for our fisheries :)

Hey pikester, what time is the book burning party? :sHa_sarcasticlol:

I don't find anything particularly nasty being posted but I have a bit of a thicker skin than most, and I know it. If there's something on the thread that you find particularly derogatory or against the rules in any way then by all means, report it to the mods and it will be removed. I don't spend allot of time on the fishing threads so this thread might be particularly disturbing to some relative to the other threads that are on this forum. :confused0024:

I don't think that the mods would close down this thread due to content but that's just IMO. AO is not about censorship and I'm sure that one or more mods have already read or are following this thread. Any of you mods want to chime in here.

Based on the amount of reads of this thread I think that although allot of people are not posting they are still reading the thread and they might find some of what is being posted interesting or informative. You might disagree with that but why would you want to try to decide what's best for them to read? :confused:

[HunterDave]

You're probably right but:
1. I'm hoping that there will be more people that vote because generally, the larger the sample, the more accurate/valid the data. I'm not sure what I'll do with that data or how skewed it is being on an outdoor forum but it might be interesting to pass along to SRD or a regional biologist, just so that they are aware. More votes would help but I agree, I don't the % is going to change much.

2. I am also hoping that we are getting close to the end of anyone having anything left to say; including name calling, and perhaps there are a few folks that haven't been heard to give a few constructive things to say from different sides of the spectrum? I think I'm pretty much done any ranting and raving I have left and will probably sit most of the last bit out in respect to others who haven't shared.

If we continue as we have, with only a few sharing and going in circles, then yes, I'll ask to close the poll. Thanks for your input.

Cheers.

Bigtoad, I'm not slamming you with the following comments about your poll however......you can create any poll that you want in order to achieve the results that you desire. Whether consciously or not, that is what happened with your poll IMO. The choices that were presented, other than for the C&R anglers that have no interest in eating fish, created a skewed poll. No big surprise there. :confused0024:

If you worded the poll differently or offered different options you would have came up with different results. For example, instead of saying "a good chance of catching 12"" you had said "with an average size of 12" with a chance of catching 16"" the poll would have been had different results. There are allot of different combinations that could have been used that would change the results of the poll everytime. Do you know what I'm saying? :)

Like I said, this is not a slam against you, your poll maybe :lol:, but not you personally. I knew just from reading the poll options what your position was and the results that you wanted to achieve. If a good ol' boy like me can see it, I'm pretty sure that the talking heads at SRD will as well. I'm just sayin'.......

[Doc]

I don't think that changing 30% of existing stocked lakes into "quality" fisheries in order to please 10% (I think that I'm being generous with that figure) of the fishing community is balanced. :)

Curious how you get 10%? If SRD doesn't know how do you?

Here's lies the problem with the management of our lakes. SRD needs to start with the basics and go from there. Does SRD know how many anglers there are in Alberta? No. They can tell you how many licenses were purchased but what about those over 65, those under 16 and our aboriginal citizens? A guess at best. Studies need to be done, data needs to be collected and plans need to be made and followed through with according to that data to make our fisheries the best damn fisheries we could hope for. Then they need to re-study the data on a continuance basis to then tweak our fisheries. Throw the models they follow now out the window (which I believe is a general X amount of trout x the number of hectares = the amount of stocked trout). Lakes like McLeod (Carson/Pegasus) will get more because of high fishing pressure and "quality" lakes get less because of the special regs but generally there doesn't appear to be a lot of thought that goes into it.

Now I know our boys running the show aren't stupid, they're highly qualified and I also know it all comes down to money. How much is it going to cost to manage our fisheries right? They really need to look at Parkland County in Manitoba for that and see how much they're spending and then the return that area is bringing in from anglers now visiting from all over North America due to those huge trout.

I think it's time we all sit down for 5 mins and write an email to our local fisheries biologist, MLA, the Minister and the Premiere. Let them know, we want great fishing here too.

[Gust]

Bigtoad, I'm not slamming you with the following comments about your poll however......you can create any poll that you want in order to achieve the results that you desire. Whether consciously or not, that is what happened with your poll IMO. The choices that were presented, other than for the C&R anglers that have no interest in eating fish, created a skewed poll. No big surprise there. :confused0024:

If you worded the poll differently or offered different options you would have came up with different results. For example, instead of saying "a good chance of catching 12"" you had said "with an average size of 12" with a chance of catching 16"" the poll would have been had different results. There are allot of different combinations that could have been used that would change the results of the poll everytime. Do you know what I'm saying? :)

Like I said, this is not a slam against you, your poll maybe :lol:, but not you personally. I knew just from reading the poll options what your position was and the results that you wanted to achieve. If a good ol' boy like me can see it, I'm pretty sure that the talking heads at SRD will as well. I'm just sayin'.......

I noticed this too, it's called a push-poll, politicians use this polling method often to always get the answer they want,,, faux-democracy.

However, someone intiated a debate and honestly even the mudslinging between a few provided a decent crosscut of an Alberta Angler.

How about a debate on how and what questions are asked?

I still don't know what degree of quality people regard as quality?

Is this poll for those up Edmonton way only?

What is a good fishing day? Limiting out? Catching 3-25 inchers? Seeing big risers? Having a great day on the water with nary a fish in sight? What is the age of the anglers? How often do they target Trout?

You know, Bigtoad, I think there are steward programs where you could gather a team and manage a lake.

Hunter makes a good point though, about joe fisherguy who discovers his local pond is now designated flyfishing only.

The poll needs to be more chunky, a few pages at least.

[Sundancefisher]

Hey pikester, what time is the book burning party? :sHa_sarcasticlol:

I don't find anything particularly nasty being posted but I have a bit of a thicker skin than most, and I know it. If there's something on the thread that you find particularly derogatory or against the rules in any way then by all means, report it to the mods and it will be removed. I don't spend allot of time on the fishing threads so this thread might be particularly disturbing to some relative to the other threads that are on this forum. :confused0024:

I don't think that the mods would close down this thread due to content but that's just IMO. AO is not about censorship and I'm sure that one or more mods have already read or are following this thread. Any of you mods want to chime in here.

Based on the amount of reads of this thread I think that although allot of people are not posting they are still reading the thread and they might find some of what is being posted interesting or informative. You might disagree with that but why would you want to try to decide what's best for them to read? :confused:

LOL

I gotta agree with Dave...seriously...we can agree about something you know. :sHa_shakeshout:

I like Dave's style of discussion. It is different but he is a great debater. Lots of fun. He is great at twisting and redirection. He is a master debater.:bad_boys_20:

Pikster... If you don't like it...maybe....don't read it?:thinking-006:

Most people don't post...but clearly people like reading. Probably fewer reads when it is not -30 out...

Plus I like trying to emulate Dave's use of smiles...:love0025:

[Sundancefisher]

Bigtoad, I'm not slamming you with the following comments about your poll however......you can create any poll that you want in order to achieve the results that you desire. Whether consciously or not, that is what happened with your poll IMO. The choices that were presented, other than for the C&R anglers that have no interest in eating fish, created a skewed poll. No big surprise there. :confused0024:

If you worded the poll differently or offered different options you would have came up with different results. For example, instead of saying "a good chance of catching 12"" you had said "with an average size of 12" with a chance of catching 16"" the poll would have been had different results. There are allot of different combinations that could have been used that would change the results of the poll everytime. Do you know what I'm saying? :)

Like I said, this is not a slam against you, your poll maybe :lol:, but not you personally. I knew just from reading the poll options what your position was and the results that you wanted to achieve. If a good ol' boy like me can see it, I'm pretty sure that the talking heads at SRD will as well. I'm just sayin'.......

LOL

Dave...the last poll you posted gave you the total opposite of what you were hoping for. In other words your poll essentially agreed with the premise behind this poll.

How about start your own poll so we can get another thread started.

[aulrich]

My vote would be to stop beating this dead horse, at least for a while. This topic has had three way too long threads.

Time to bury the hatchet.

[HunterDave]

Curious how you get 10%? If SRD doesn't know how do you?

Here's lies the problem with the management of our lakes. SRD needs to start with the basics and go from there. Does SRD know how many anglers there are in Alberta? No. They can tell you how many licenses were purchased but what about those over 65, those under 16 and our aboriginal citizens? A guess at best. Studies need to be done, data needs to be collected and plans need to be made and followed through with according to that data to make our fisheries the best damn fisheries we could hope for. Then they need to re-study the data on a continuance basis to then tweak our fisheries. Throw the models they follow now out the window (which I believe is a general X amount of trout x the number of hectares = the amount of stocked trout). Lakes like McLeod (Carson/Pegasus) will get more because of high fishing pressure and "quality" lakes get less because of the special regs but generally there doesn't appear to be a lot of thought that goes into it.

Now I know our boys running the show aren't stupid, they're highly qualified and I also know it all comes down to money. How much is it going to cost to manage our fisheries right? They really need to look at Parkland County in Manitoba for that and see how much they're spending and then the return that area is bringing in from anglers now visiting from all over North America due to those huge trout.

I think it's time we all sit down for 5 mins and write an email to our local fisheries biologist, MLA, the Minister and the Premiere. Let them know, we want great fishing here too.

I pulled the 10% out of the air to make a point. It all comes down to your own perception I guess and drawing your own conclusions from there. If you surround yourself with people that want something a certain way then your perception of what the majority wants may not be as realistic as you think.

Yes, you are entirely correct that no one knows what the exact number of anglers are in the province. Licensed yes, but total no. SRD can make a pretty good guesstimate based on what they do know though.

I think that the best solution to confirm either way what anglers want is to ask SRD to conduct a survey of all licensed anglers. It should include a section with the number of children in the home and the counts of the children should count towards how the angler votes. This would cover licensed anglers as well as their children that will inherit the fishing waters from us adults. The only group not covered would be seniors and an online or similar poll could be available for them. Is there any logic to my thinking?

If done fairly, whatever the results, I would be happy to live with it. As I have previously stated, I do see an upside with easing the fishing pressure in harder to get to lakes as a result of creating easy to get to "quality" fisheries close to large urban areas like Calgary and Edmonton. :)

[Fishfinder]

My vote would be to stop beating this dead horse, at least for a while. This topic has had three way too long threads.

Time to bury the hatchet.

No way! This is way too entertaining...and interesting:party0052::grouphugg:
Of the choices, I voted for the first one. And if I really felt like eating some trout, I'd just go to another lake where permitted to keep some.:scared0018:
Cheers n GL all:)

[Bigtoad]

I noticed this too, it's called a push-poll, politicians use this polling method often to always get the answer they want,,, faux-democracy.


I wasn't trying to sway the poll (too much:acigar:) when I came up with the questions. There were 5 different options as I saw them; I guess I could have done a "1 any size" but thought 1 over and 1 under would still give a good choice. As for the size of fish, I put down what I thought was reasonable for an accessible stocked trout lake. I know of a one that has a 5 fish limit and produce fish over 20" but it's relatively isolated. I know many more where the average is 12".

However, you can tweek the average size of the fish for each question and debate what is a more reasonable average size (or leave it out altogether) but it's 75% vs. 25% for quality vs. quantity, as I see it. It's not even close. C&R alone is 40% of the vote and a limit of 5 is 6%.

I don't see any skewing there boys. I see you coming up with excuses and giving the line of, "90% of statistics are inaccurate," to try and skew what you really wish it would be. "Well, this is NOT what the average fishermen in Alberta wants," or "Oh, the questions are misleading," or whatever. Stop complaining and coming up with excuses. It's obvious what the average fishermen wants that is on this poll. I'll let those numbers continue to speak for themselves. Go skew yourself:sHa_shakeshout: (Oh man, I just could NOT resist that!)

Cheers.

[HunterDave]

Curious how you get 10%? If SRD doesn't know how do you?

Here's lies the problem with the management of our lakes. SRD needs to start with the basics and go from there. Does SRD know how many anglers there are in Alberta? No. They can tell you how many licenses were purchased but what about those over 65, those under 16 and our aboriginal citizens? A guess at best. Studies need to be done, data needs to be collected and plans need to be made and followed through with according to that data to make our fisheries the best damn fisheries we could hope for. Then they need to re-study the data on a continuance basis to then tweak our fisheries. Throw the models they follow now out the window (which I believe is a general X amount of trout x the number of hectares = the amount of stocked trout). Lakes like McLeod (Carson/Pegasus) will get more because of high fishing pressure and "quality" lakes get less because of the special regs but generally there doesn't appear to be a lot of thought that goes into it.

Now I know our boys running the show aren't stupid, they're highly qualified and I also know it all comes down to money. How much is it going to cost to manage our fisheries right? They really need to look at Parkland County in Manitoba for that and see how much they're spending and then the return that area is bringing in from anglers now visiting from all over North America due to those huge trout.

I think it's time we all sit down for 5 mins and write an email to our local fisheries biologist, MLA, the Minister and the Premiere. Let them know, we want great fishing here too.

I pulled the 10% out of the air to make a point. It all comes down to your own perception I guess and drawing your own conclusions from there. If you surround yourself with people that want something a certain way then your perception of what the majority wants may not be as realistic as you think.

Yes, you are entirely correct that no one knows what the exact number of anglers are in the province. Licensed yes, but total no. SRD can make a pretty good guesstimate based on what they do know though.

I think that the best solution to confirm either way what anglers want is to ask SRD to conduct a survey of all licensed anglers. It should include a section with the number of children in the home and the counts of the children should count towards how the angler votes. This would cover licensed anglers as well as their children that will inherit the fishing waters from us adults. The only group not covered would be seniors and an online or similar poll could be available for them. Is there any logic to my thinking?

If done fairly, whatever the results, I would be happy to live with it. As I have previously stated, I do see an upside with easing the fishing pressure in harder to get to lakes as a result of creating easy to get to "quality" fisheries close to large urban areas like Calgary and Edmonton. :)