walleye draw

[pencapchew]

Has anyone else been called and asked a bunch of questions about the draw? The lady didnt seem to know much about it but i for one will be happy if they continue it.

[Shovelhead 74]

Got a call last week. She said she was with fish & wildlife.
She seemed to know what she was talking about. Like to see the program continue too!

[droptine]

I feel the walleye draw is absolutely ridiculous. A regular catch limit should be set at the lakes that have a high population of walleye. All the tag system has done is increase the fishing population at the tag lakes and ruin the availability to camping without long booking times. If too many people fall for this Gov't money grab it will only be a matter of time and you will be buying tags for all fish species.

[Rockymtnx]

I feel the walleye draw is absolutely ridiculous. A regular catch limit should be set at the lakes that have a high population of walleye. All the tag system has done is increase the fishing population at the tag lakes and ruin the availability to camping without long booking times. If too many people fall for this Gov't money grab it will only be a matter of time and you will be buying tags for all fish species.

How has this increased the fishing population of the tag lakes? If you opened a general season I am afraid that you would see a lot more people at the campgrounds all season long. Can you explain to me how a general season would decrease the number of campersfishers?
Why do you think its a money grab? The $10 you pay doesn't even cover the administration fees. I guarantee you that they aren't making any money at $3.34 a tag.

[Rockymtnx]

While I was on Pigeon this summer I was questioned many times by someone with SRD. Each time they wanted to know how many we caught, how big, and our comments.

[sheephunter]

If too many people fall for this Gov't money grab it will only be a matter of time and you will be buying tags for all fish species.


Definitely not a cash grab....the government sees little if any of this $$$$.

I'm not sure how you figure this incresed anglers numbers either.....

[droptine]

Your right it is not a big money maker right now, the only reason the tags are $3.34 a piece is because of the poor turnout of draw applications giving those that applied more tags. Also you are forgetting the $3.25 per application. They are only in trial stage with this system and if carried out they wont be doing it at a money loss. Also I never said the tag system increased the overall amount of anglers I said that it increased the angling pressure at the tag lakes. Refering to Wolf Lake for instance you never had to book a stall nor could you or had to until this year. I talked to allot of people that have been at this lake for years and I am not alone on my opinion. I would guess that with the people involved and the whole process of the tag system there is a large loss of money. This money could be better implemented into sustainable resources vs wire loops and sticky tags.

[sheephunter]

Your right it is not a big money maker right now, the only reason the tags are $3.34 a piece is because of the poor turnout of draw applications giving those that applied more tags. Also you are forgetting the $3.25 per application. They are only in trial stage with this system and if carried out they wont be doing it at a money loss. Also I never said the tag system increased the overall amount of anglers I said that it increased the angling pressure at the tag lakes. Refering to Wolf Lake for instance you never had to book a stall nor could you or had to until this year. I talked to allot of people that have been at this lake for years and I am not alone on my opinion. I would guess that with the people involved and the whole process of the tag system there is a large loss of money. This money could be better implemented into sustainable resources vs wire loops and sticky tags.


Droptine, you need to look at how the money is distributed from draws and tags.....before the government sees a cent, ISM, the retailer and ACA all receive their share. As Rockymtx pointed out, in the case of the walleye draw, there is virtually nothing left for the government. It's defintely not a money maker regardless of how many lakes they put on draw and how many people apply and get tags. It seems that very few Albertan really understand how the money from our draws and licence sales are distributed.

[SNAPFisher]

Droptine I agree with sheep and rocky that it is not money at all. After talking with S&D this year, the government is not seeing a thing $$$ wise. So it is not a Govnt money maker. My understanding is that the charges are to cover the shares to the other companies and cover costs - nothing more.

I suspect your right about Wolf Lake. I'm sure the chance to be able to keep walleye from there led to an increase in pressure. They may find that there are lakes that are not good for a keep system of any kind. Hopefully the data on the pilot project will prove useful in making further decisions.

[droptine]

I completely agree sheep, it is a waste of money and time. Unfortunately at the expense of the angler.

[happy perch fisher]

i'm all for the draws they sould just make them more easier to get and for more lakes. they can't open any lakes around the city for walleye because they know they will get destroyed in the first month they open it.

[Rockymtnx]

All the tag system has done is increase the fishing population at the tag lakes


Also I never said the tag system increased the overall amount of anglers I said that it increased the angling pressure at the tag lakes.



Looks like to me you said it. Maybe I am wrong????

[Rockymtnx]

Your right it is not a big money maker right now, the only reason the tags are $3.34 a piece is because of the poor turnout of draw applications giving those that applied more tags. Also you are forgetting the $3.25 per application. They are only in trial stage with this system and if carried out they wont be doing it at a money loss. Also I never said the tag system increased the overall amount of anglers I said that it increased the angling pressure at the tag lakes. Refering to Wolf Lake for instance you never had to book a stall nor could you or had to until this year. I talked to allot of people that have been at this lake for years and I am not alone on my opinion. I would guess that with the people involved and the whole process of the tag system there is a large loss of money. This money could be better implemented into sustainable resources vs wire loops and sticky tags.

Yes the tag system probably increased the amount of people coming to fish at the lake. But if they would have opened it up without tags. I would put money on it that you would have seen heck of a lot more people out there.
One thing we do have to remember is that we are in a day and age that people in Alberta are making big money. RV sales have never been higher. 2006 seen a 30.2% increase over 2005. 2005 only seen a 5.1% increase over 2004. Everyone wants their relaxing weekend get away. Another reason why we have seen lake lots quadruple in price the past couple years.
I think the busyness with recreational stuff has sky rocketed with all types not just fishing. I remember a few years ago when on a long weekend you could go out to Nordegg to one of 5 different campsites and be one of only 5 units out there. Now this summer I seen some of these same places with 50 + units jammed in them.
When people make money, they buy toys. When people have toys, they use their toys.

[Rockymtnx]

i'm all for the draws they sould just make them more easier to get and for more lakes. they can't open any lakes around the city for walleye because they know they will get destroyed in the first month they open it.


That would be the case with Pigeon Lake. If it had been opened up to one fish/day, by the end of summer there wouldn't be a Walleye left in there. Pigeon sees a ton of people from Edmonton & outskirts, Leduc, Wetaskiwin, Ponoka, & Red Deer. SRD needed to find a way to only be able to take a "X" number of Walleye out of the lake.

[droptine]

Could they not make the tags general to purchase when you buy your license:
allow X number of tags for Newell,Pigeon, Wolf and other lakes that have high walleye populations. This way they could allow more anglers to catch and keep more walleye and spread the fishing pressure around to more lakes.

[sheephunter]

This was just a pilot project droptine and they are considering a number of different options. Obviously what they did had very little buy in from the public so I'm sure you'll see some major tinkering next year.

[wind drift]

At the recent Fisheries Management Round Table, Trevor Rhodes, with Fisheries Management, presented some survey info that indicated strong angler support for the tags. Recommendations were made to improve the system.

[sheephunter]

I think that strong angler support may be a bit of an over statement considering they never came anywhere close to getting enough applications for the number of licences available but they are working at making it better for sure.

[droptine]

not only grossly under subscribed sheep, but lots of tags never got filled because of the shortened walleye season

[droptine]

not only grossly under subscribed sheep, but lots of tags never got filled because of the shortened walleye season,IMO the tags should have been good for the entire season

[wind drift]

I get your point, Sheep, but the 2007 tag sales were waay up from 2006. I can't say how folks responded to hunting tags when they were first introduced in Alberta, but I think it's fair to believe there was a "warming up" process.

[sheephunter]

Way up from 2006 still doesn't mean much public buy in....the 2006 number couldn't have been much lower. Even those in charge realize the system needs fixing and I'm sure we'll see major changes in 2008 as we did in 2007. It's definitely a work in progress. One of the big problems is that those that designed the system are way out of touch with the common man and falsely thought that anglers would jump all over this as a new opportunity. The fact is, it wasn't a new opportunity. You were buying walleye by the pound and in 2006 they were charging way too much for that pound. 2007 was better when they increased tag numbers but it's still a lot of money per pound. I can fish these lakes all I want with a general angling licence...all the tags let me do is take home X number of pounds of fish. There is no new angling opportunity. That was totally missed in 2006 and partially corrected in 2007. It's still too much per pound for a lot of anglers though and you saw that again this year with another dismal turn out for the draws. I'm not sure why they are having so much trouble grasping the concept.

I'm not against the draws at all...just the process and the value.

[Shovelhead 74]

It was nice to sit around the campfire, filet a nice Walleye and panfry a few fillets. What a great way to end my fishing day. GOD I LOVE PICKERAL!

[wind drift]

You've twisted things around a bit, Sheep. One the F&W website, it's only been called called a new fish harvest opportunity, which it certainly is.

I don't think it's fair to say the fisheries folks are out of touch with anglers. The opinion surveys were done at the boat launches and over the phone - with the "common man". In terms of pounds per dollar, F&W was listening to the AFGA, who asked that it be set at one fish per tag in 2006, thinking that would allow the most anglers to participate. Reasonable thinking, but we can't pin the decision on F&W. Doesn't matter anyway, cuz ultimately the "market" will set the value of the tags. How can we find fault with trying something, learning from it and improving?

It would have been good to have heard your thoughts at the Round Table.

[sheephunter]

I actually have sat in on a few of the regional meetings and they were most definitely out of touch and they can give it any name they want...it's not a new angling opportunity.....it's a tag to buy so many pounds of walleye. In the hunting draws, that draw licence gives you an opportunity to hunt that you would not have had otherwise but all this walleye tag does is give you the chance to take home X number of pounds of fish from a lake you are already licenced to fish any time you want during the open season. The goverment missed that point big time the first time around and corrected it a bit in 2007.

I'm not faulting the management strategy at all...in fact I wholeheartedly support it but their delivery sucked and I've told Trevor that and so on up the line and so far I've been right.

If F&W would have listened to the AFGA, there never would have been a draw in the first place. I was at the convention where the draw system was introduced. There was no consultation...it was introduced and the AFGA members at the convention were not happy.

The only market that will ever set the value of this tag is the supermarket.....

[wind drift]

AFGA supports it now. The past is prologue...

[sheephunter]

Wind Drift....like I said...I support the management but could I or a thousand other anglers have done a better job with the method of delivery? You bet. I publically wrote about the flaws in the system since day one and like I said...my criticism was proven right. These guys are biologists and they do a damn fine job but they are so far out of touch with the general angling public that it's scary. I don't blame them...that's not their field of expertise and I guess they did the best they could but some public consulatation would have averted a lot of the growing pains. It was pretty obvious to me and countless others that it was going to fall on its face and boy did it ever.

[wind drift]

The criticism about the promotion is fair, Sheep. F&W would never get hired to make a Pepsi ad campaign. I don't think laying blame for lack of consultation is, though, nor is F&W being out of touch. The 1 fish/tag direction in '06 came from AFGA...a direct result of consultation. So who's out of touch there? F&W changed that for 2007 -not the sign of a crew of out-of-touch biologists. The other criticism you mentioned was F&W calling it a new angling opportunity. Again, F&W didn't say that...the website calls it a new harvest opportunity. Big difference. Developing a way for anglers to harvest fish while still allowing a fishery to sustain itself doesn't seem like something an "out of touch organization" would do to me. Sounds like listening to the clientele. Just like asking anglers in '06 and this year how to make it better.

As far as "falling on it's face" goes...well, if this program continues, which it looks like it will, it appears to be doing so with the support of many anglers. Might have been a stumble or two, but hardly a face smacking wipeout.

[sheephunter]

The 1 fish/tag direction in '06 came from AFGA...a direct result of consultation.

Where and when did this take place...I know it came as a shock to all at the convention. I am aware of no public consulatation prior to the decision to put the lakes on a draw but am open to learning something.

Not saying they aren't trying to make it better but it could have been a whole lot better to start with. $13.25 per fish was outrageous and anyone that thought anglers would line up to pay this was indeed out of touch.

I agree this promo was a total disaster as well but with all the promo in the world, they were never going to sell that dead horse in 2006 and it was only slightly alive in 2007. Hopefully 2008 sees them a bit more in touch with reality.

[wind drift]

January 2006 Minister's Round Table. Also requested then was the 2-3 month inital season, the 3 size categories, large to small size class order of the draws and holding back on the issuing of undersubscribed licences in the first year.

[sheephunter]

Ya but where was the public consultation? A round table is a long ways from a true process of public consultation. Anyhow, the fact remains that anglers weren't willing to pay $13.25 for a half pound of walleye and I think that should have been obvious from the begining. I know I saw it. Thankfully it's all in the past now and the process seems to be improving. Once again, I'm not criticising the science or the management behind it but you'll never convince me that F&W is in touch when they hatched this ill-conceived plan from the beginning and, since that's not really their job, I guess it should come as no surprise but I'm guessing some public consultation would have eliviated a lot of problems.

I guess we can sit and argue all we want here but the fact remains that the 2006 plan was a disaster and many of us foresaw it...that should say something!

[Waxy]

Sheephunter,

Perhaps I missed it, but what are your major criticisms of the current system and what suggestions do you have to improve the system?

I see it as a pretty darn ingenious idea. I didn't see it promoted as a new angling opportunity, only as an opportunity to harvest fish on previously catch and release only waters. They've come up with a system that responded to the angler's request for some form of selective harvest opportunity.

I don't think there's really any questioning the fact that it's a very effective way of controlling the fish harvest. Nothing would be as effective as stepping up enforcement to prevent all the illegal harvest that goes on, and enforce the tag system itself, but as a management plan, it makes sense to me. I just can't see allowing a "limit" of fish on AB's lakes like in SK or MB, there's simply too much fishing pressure, and the resource is too good right now to risk damaging it.

As far as the cost of the tags, if you don't want to pay for it, don't. You can't compare it to the cost per pound of buying fillets in the supermarket. If filling the freezer is the only reason you're out fishing, then perhaps you'd be better off just buying the fillets anyway, as you're kinda missing the whole point. I view it as the cost of the experience - like paying to go out to a good restaurant for a steak rather than throwing one on the BBQ at home. Very little in the outdoor world is cheap, and quite frankly, I think the cost of the tags is pretty minor in return for the experience of a fresh shore lunch. I also know that the money goes to outdoor friendly businesses and the management of the fishery, both of which I gladly support.

Waxy

[sheephunter]

Actuaully you are kind of missing the point waxxy...the idea is to harvest fish to help meet management goals and the government has made it too expensive for the average angler to want to buy in. They are not doing us some big favour here, they need anglers to take fish out of these lakes and I wholeheartedly agree that a draw or some other limited tag system is the way to do it but you need angler buy in for it to work.

I don't know why I need to keep saying this but I'll say it again because obviously you missed it as well...I totally believe their science and their management objectives and have said that since day one but I also told them since day one that charging $13.25 per fish was never going to fly and it didn't. 2007 was a big improvement with the issuing of more tags. They also need to make it easier for anglers to buy tags. I understand there are some issues with ISM and that's why the draw process closes so quickly but fix it or devise another method for getting these tags into the hands of anglers. It ain't rocket science.

I find it funny on this site how when you try to disagree with a small portion of a greater idea that you are instantly branded as being against the entire idea...well I'm not but that also doesn't mean it couldn't have been done better and to that end, the govrernment missed the mark. This ain't a a case of fer it or agin it...it's a case of constructive criticism to help with a system that obviously isn't working.

[Waxy]

Actuaully you are kind of missing the point waxxy...the idea is to harvest fish to help meet management goals and the government has made it too expensive for the average angler to want to buy in. They are not doing us some big favour here, they need anglers to take fish out of these lakes and I wholeheartedly agree that a draw or some other limited tag system is the way to do it but you need angler buy in for it to work.

I guess I did completely miss the point. I wasn't aware that the harvest of fish was desired by the F&W people as part of managing the resource. My impression was that catch and release was/is the best option in terms of managing the resource - and that the draw system was a compromise to allow anglers some limited harvest of the resource.

I'll have to look into it a little further, it seems counterintuitive to me decreasing the number of fish would improve the fishery. On top of that, you'd think nature, in combination with delayed mortality, would more than take care of that problem on its own. Do you have any links or info regarding the studies and the need to take fish out of the lakes? I'd appreciate them for my own info.

I don't know why I need to keep saying this but I'll say it again because obviously you missed it as well...I totally believe their science and their management objectives and have said that since day one but I also told them since day one that charging $13.25 per fish was never going to fly and it didn't. 2007 was a big improvement with the issuing of more tags. They also need to make it easier for anglers to buy tags. I understand there are some issues with ISM and that's why the draw process closes so quickly but fix it or devise another method for getting these tags into the hands of anglers. It ain't rocket science.

In my opinion, it's more a lack of info and availability than overpriced tags. I don't think they did a very good job of getting the message out to the casual angler. I agree that a simple over counter system of some kind on undersubcribed tags would help increase the number of tags being purchased.

$13.25/fish is pretty steep, but all things considered, it's not completely unreasonable to my mind. However, I agree with you that lowering the price would increase buy-in, and I'm sure they'll look at that in the future. To my mind though, the program should be self sustaining financially.

I find it funny on this site how when you try to disagree with a small portion of a greater idea that you are instantly branded as being against the entire idea...well I'm not but that also doesn't mean it couldn't have been done better and to that end, the govrernment missed the mark. This ain't a a case of fer it or agin it...it's a case of constructive criticism to help with a system that obviously isn't working.

There's no need to be so defensive and short sheephunter, I was merely asking questions of someone who obviously has knowledge and an interest in the subject. I'm not attacking you or branding you in any way, you're reading far too much into this and making it personal when it isn't. Relax.

Waxy

[sheephunter]

I guess I did completely miss the point. I wasn't aware that the harvest of fish was desired by the F&W people as part of managing the resource. My impression was that catch and release was/is the best option in terms of managing the resource - and that the draw system was a compromise to allow anglers some limited harvest of the resource.

I'll have to look into it a little further, it seems counterintuitive to me decreasing the number of fish would improve the fishery. On top of that, you'd think nature, in combination with delayed mortality, would more than take care of that problem on its own. Do you have any links or info regarding the studies and the need to take fish out of the lakes? I'd appreciate them for my own info.


Talk to Trevor Rhodes of SRD...he'll be able to fill you in on all the details.

Sometimes harvest is a beneficial thing....just as it is with hunting.

[sirmike68]

If they want to meet their management objectives and succeed in filling their quotas they could increase limits. How ever many anglers bought tags for each lake involved they could take "X" amount of anglers and divide up the quota and increase or decrease the limits to meet their goals. When I was fishing Pigeon this year I kept my 3 limit but caught hundreds. I would have had no problem keeping 10 -15 if thats what it took to fill their quota to help manage the lake. I know that will probably never happen because that would be giving too much for to little money, but if the money is not what they are after it shouldn't be a problem.

[Waxy]

Talk to Trevor Rhodes of SRD...he'll be able to fill you in on all the details.

Ummmm, OK. Maybe I'll bump into him sometime.

Sometimes harvest is a beneficial thing....just as it is with hunting.

I understand that. I guess I just didn't realize AB walleye populations were at that point, or could be considered in the same manner as big game. I wasn't aware that the factors that require big game to be so carefully managed, a lack of natural predators and habitat, applied in the same manner to fish populations.

Thanks Sheephunter.

Waxy

[sheephunter]

While your tone is not lost on me, I'll try to explain....certainly lakes like Pigeon are indeed a classic example of a lake in need of a controled harvest. Walleye, unlike big game animals are the predator so your attempt at sarcasm is a bit misplaced. When predators begin to run out of prey, there are two options......let nature take its course or manage the fishery and remove some of the predators. Pigeon is indeed running low on prey and the drastic reducton in average size over the past five or six is a great indication just how low the populations of larger prey species are.

While certainly not the fault of the biologists, as they were acting with the best info they had, but Pigeon is a classic case of over management. Walleye populations got artificially high for a number of reason, reducing prey and reducing the number of trophy fish that this lake was known for. So yes, a harvest is beneficial sometimes.

I detected the sarcasm in your voice too when I suggested that you talk to Trevor but it would time well spent. The guy knows his stuff!

[Waxy]

While your tone is not lost on me, I'll try to explain....certainly lakes like Pigeon are indeed a classic example of a lake in need of a controled harvest. Walleye, unlike big game animals are the predator so your attempt at sarcasm is a bit misplaced. When predators begin to run out of prey, there are two options......let nature take its course or manage the fishery and remove some of the predators. Pigeon is indeed running low on prey and the drastic reducton in average size over the past five or six is a great indication just how low the populations of larger prey species are.

While certainly not the fault of the biologists, as they were acting with the best info they had, but Pigeon is a classic case of over management. Walleye populations got artificially high for a number of reason, reducing prey and reducing the number of trophy fish that this lake was known for. So yes, a harvest is beneficial sometimes.

I detected the sarcasm in your voice too when I suggested that you talk to Trevor but it would time well spent. The guy knows his stuff!

The Trevor comment was sarcastic. Simply responding "Talk to Trevor" doesn't get me, or anyone else reading this with interest, anywhere. What am I gonna do? Look the guy up in the phone book and cold call him to talk about fisheries biology? I was hoping you had some reference info I could check out.

As for the rest of my post, no sarcasm was intended whatsoever. As a personal comment - it's hard to convey emotion or tone through the written word, you shouldn't have such a thin skin and don't take things so personally. I think it's pretty clear from my few posts here that I don't intend offense to anyone, I've been polite, civil and respectful. If you don't feel that's the case or choose not to respond in kind, that's fine by me, we simply won't interact on the forums in the future. Life's too short.

Now, to the content of the post.

I was truly unaware of the situation with the walleye population in AB, I'm a SK boy, and the only AB lake I've fished is Crawling Valley.

Walleye, to the best of my knowledge, are both predator and prey throughout the majority of their life span. It's been my understanding that the populations of fish species are largely self regulating due to this and variations in success of each individual year class. I was not aware that they can become "overpopulated". I've never heard that term used before with regard to any fish species. The comparison to big game was based on that understanding of predation/survival rates and the fact that fish habitat is generally very stable.

If I understand your last post correctly, walleye populations are up, but average size is down. I assume that this is due to the increase competition for prey outstripping the increased number of fish being produced in the lake. I'm guessing that if as you say, the greater numbers lead to smaller fish, that's where the slot limit comes from in SK, MB, and ON. I can see how eliminating competition at a certain level would skew population sizes to either end of the spectrum.

I guess the question then becomes do you manage the fishery to produce fewer but larger fish, or do you manage it to maximize the population? I'm not sure on the answer to that. Personally, I'd rather catch 50 fish in a day than 5 big ones. I fish regularly on Last Mountain in Sask, and trophy fish (my personal best is 11 lbs, but I've seen several 14 lb'ers) are abundant, but in general, the fishing is terrible. It's pretty hard to beat those days on a fly-in trip or the odd magical day on the lakes down here when you can catch fish to heart's content all day long.

Waxy

[sheephunter]

The Trevor comment was sarcastic. Simply responding "Talk to Trevor" doesn't get me, or anyone else reading this with interest, anywhere. What am I gonna do? Look the guy up in the phone book and cold call him to talk about fisheries biology? I was hoping you had some reference info I could check out.


Yes, a cold call to Trevor is exactly what I was suggesting. Finding his number is as simple as going to the government web site. Sorry, I don't know of any info on the web, I prefer the horse's mouth and truthfully what's going on at Pigeon is a complex issue worthy of a much more detailed explaination than a visit to a web site.

The high population of walleye in Pigeon is a recent thing and likely a temporary one if populations are not decreased. Anyhow, Trevor could explain this far better than I and if you are truly interested in learning more about the rational behind the draws, I highly reccommend speaking to one of the province's biologists. They are a wealth of info. I'm no expert on fish biology and have faith in their management techniques and far be it for me to try and paraphrase this complex issue.

How they ran the actual draw...now that's another matter....I've got lots of opinion on that.

I've fished Last Mountain many times and for me personally...I'll take those five big fish any day. Alberta is full of lakes where catching 50 or 100 walleye a day is a breeze but catching one 10 pounder...now that's a rare occurance indeed. Pigeon used to be the one exception.

[Waxy]

Yes, a cold call to Trevor is exactly what I was suggesting. Finding his number is as simple as going to the government web site. Sorry, I don't know of any info on the web, I prefer the horse's mouth and truthfully what's going on at Pigeon is a complex issue worthy of a much more detailed explaination than a visit to a web site.

I'm not sure that's my style, but I'll keep it in mind, and I'll definitely remember the name. I would like to learn more about walleyes in general, knowledge is power.

The high population of walleye in Pigeon is a recent thing and likely a temporary one if populations are not decreased. Anyhow, Trevor could explain this far better than I and if you are truly interested in learning more about the rational behind the draws, I highly reccommend speaking to one of the province's biologists. They are a wealth of info. I'm no expert on fish biology and have faith in their management techniques and far be it for me to try and paraphrase this complex issue.

I suspect the populations are somewhat cyclical.

I'd like to get that opportunity. Perhaps at one of the upcoming outdoors shows...

I've fished Last Mountain many times and for me personally...I'll take those five big fish any day. Alberta is full of lakes where catching 50 or 100 walleye a day is a breeze but catching one 10 pounder...now that's a rare occurance indeed. Pigeon used to be the one exception.

I agree that when the fishing is hot there - those magical two weeks in early June and in the late fall - it's REALLY hard to beat, but I've spent WAAAYYY too many days on "The Mountain" with nothing to show for it but a sunburn and sea legs from riding the 4' waves all day. :p :D By the same token, after day 4 or 5 of catching 1-2 lb fish on a fly in trip, I'm ready for something else. I guess in a perfect world, there'd be 100 fish a day, with every 10th one or so being a trophy. :D

Waxy

[wind drift]

[QUOTE=sheephunter;77075]Ya but where was the public consultation? A round table is a long ways from a true process of public consultation.

Sheep, you and I both know that wasn't the sum total of consultation done. You asked a question and I answered it. The point made was that F&W acted on the requests made by stakeholders at the Round Table. Your criticism shouldn't focus strictly on F&W.

[sheephunter]

[QUOTE=sheephunter;77075]Ya but where was the public consultation? A round table is a long ways from a true process of public consultation.

Sheep, you and I both know that wasn't the sum total of consultation done. You asked a question and I answered it. The point made was that F&W acted on the requests made by stakeholders at the Round Table. Your criticism shouldn't focus strictly on F&W.

Actually I don't know that...that's why I asked.

Why shouldn't it focus stricty on F&W...they were the ones that decided anglers would pay $13.25 a fish when many told them they were out to lunch. Who was right?

I'm sure this was discussed at the round table as far as there being a draw for walleye but were the details ever discussed...like that it would cost $13.25 a fish? I sure saw nothing about that. Seniors were faced with an extra cost as well as they also had to buy a WIN Card. Just saying it could have been done way better from the getgo.

[sheephunter]

I suspect the populations are somewhat cyclical.


Not really...way more complicated than a simple answer like that...

As for The Mountain.....I love fishing any time there. I've had some of the most incredible suspended bites with 29x50 in July and August that you could imagine. You never saw a fish under 5 pounds. Summer walleye aren't easy but they are hungry. I'd say 90% of the fishing in the lake is untapped. The fish are there but it's just most anglers can't key in on them other than a couple times of the year.

[Waxy]

Not really...way more complicated than a simple answer like that...

I'm sure it is.

As for The Mountain.....I love fishing any time there. I've had some of the most incredible suspended bites with 29x50 in July and August that you could imagine. You never saw a fish under 5 pounds. Summer walleye aren't easy but they are hungry. I'd say 90% of the fishing in the lake is untapped. The fish are there but it's just most anglers can't key in on them other than a couple times of the year.

I agree. I'm still learning to fish the Mountain. There are miles and miles of it I've never driven over with the sonar or cast a line into. It's a challenging lake, but I think that's a big part of the attraction too. On top of that, I finally got myself a boat this year that's going to let me do the fishing I've always wanted to.

I'm not a big troller, I much prefer to jig or Lindy, so I'm really going to try and force myself to learn the crankbait and trolling techniques that they use on the big water in MN and the Great Lakes. I think there's a method there that can be applied to the Mountain, especially for summer fishing.

We'll have to get in touch if you're planning a trip out there this year.

Waxy

[sheephunter]

I'm not a big troller, I much prefer to jig or Lindy, so I'm really going to try and force myself to learn the crankbait and trolling techniques that they use on the big water in MN and the Great Lakes. I think there's a method there that can be applied to the Mountain, especially for summer fishing.


Not only MN and Great Lakes but Sask as well. Trolling for suspended walleye in Last Mountain is hands down the most productive technique there is during the summer. Spend a day on the water with a guy like Rob Schulz from Rowan's and you'll be shocked what you've been missing.

We've also had some great days in the fall using jigging spoons....

[Waxy]

We've been experimenting with jigging spoons and buzz bombs as well, some days they seem to work really well, other days not at all.

Is Rob the guy at G&S Marina?

Maybe we should start a new thread on fishing the Mountain, I'm always looking for new info and ideas...especially about trolling.

Waxy

[sheephunter]

Is Rob the guy and G&S Marina?


Yes he is.

[wind drift]

Hi Sheep,
I must not be doing a very good job of getting my point across, but I'll try again.

You asked "when and where did this take place?". To which I replied, "January 2006 Minister's Round Table". You then responded with "Ya, but where was the public consultation"?, which I thought was a bit off-track because you had earlier indicated you had attended regional meetings pertaining to the topic. That was why I said, "you and I both know that wasn't the sum total of consultation done". Then you said, "actually I don't know that...that's why I asked", which had me a bit baffled, cause it seemed like we were stuck in a loop.

You then reiterated your criticism of F&W because of the $13.25 per fish cost in 2006. My response to this criticism was, and is, that attributing the cause of that and some of the other features of the initial tag system I highlighted yesterday (e.g. short harvest season, no undersubscribed tag availability), is simply wrong. You can choose to accept my testament or not, but as a witness to the events, I can tell you that these aspects were either endorsed by, or in some cases, outright recommended by, the stakeholders at that meeting, most prominently AFGA. I don't know how to make that more clear.

Now ultimately, if you still choose to fault F&W as being the ultimate decision-maker, who could have rejected those endorsements and recommendations, then fair enough. That doesn't smell right to me, though, and they would have done so at their public relations peril. Nor does it smell right to say F&W called it a new angling opportunity or that they are out of touch, for the reasons I've already stated.

Beacuse my tone or demeanor can't come across in this digital media, please know that I respect you and value your thoughts and contributions to the outdoors. Thanks and take care.