Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum

Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum (http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/index.php)
-   Fishing Discussion (http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   1965 fishing report (http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=332384)

Red Bullets 10-29-2017 02:13 PM

1965 fishing report
 
Came across this old article with sort of a fishing report for 1965. Not much has changed. What do you think? The only thing I noticed is there were no walleye in Calling back then, according to what the author says.

http://peel.library.ualberta.ca/news...SGC%29%7Cscore

Dweb 10-29-2017 02:23 PM

Cool find

iYearn 10-29-2017 02:30 PM

That is an amazing article.

The picture says it all: What would it take to get that catch of perch and walleye out of Boyne today?

harleydangerous 10-29-2017 03:11 PM

I think it's interesting that it lists Lac Sante for lake trout. Anyone catch any lakers out of there in recent history?

pikergolf 10-29-2017 06:40 PM

Interesting look at our past, Jasper Park heavily stocked, interesting.

pikeman06 10-29-2017 07:06 PM

Good ol George Mitchell...loved his articles and the old alberta fishing guides. Fished alberta back when it was worth putting gas in the boat, probably ate fish everyday and lived a good life.

HowSwedeItIs 10-29-2017 08:12 PM

Interesting article... At what point did 'walleye' supplant 'pickerel' as the popular name for the species? I have always said walleye, but it seems that men of 'finer vintage' than myself almost always use the term pickerel. This is the first time I have seen it used in writing in an Albertan context.

RavYak 10-29-2017 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harleydangerous (Post 3654644)
I think it's interesting that it lists Lac Sante for lake trout. Anyone catch any lakers out of there in recent history?

I highly doubt there are any left. Fisheries tried stocking them in a ton of lakes and they never took off in most of them let alone a lake like Sante where everything but burbot struggles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pikergolf (Post 3654826)
Interesting look at our past, Jasper Park heavily stocked, interesting.

Fisheries used to stock a lot more back then. Maybe not by numbers of fish but far more waterbodies and species then they do now.

SNAPFisher 10-30-2017 09:38 AM

That really is a cool find. Thanks Bullets! :)

Boyne threw me for a second. It sounded familiar and then I remembered it is now Floating Stone. I think that evening's catch represents the current bio bass for the entire lake today :lol:

Grayling in Kinky...and they overwintered...

Poor Muir. Looks like it had nothing definite back then and nothing definite now :innocent:

3blade 10-30-2017 10:05 AM

Cool article. My grandpa still tells stories about fishing with George. What things must have been like in those days...:)

McLeod 10-30-2017 10:16 AM

My Uncle George loved fishing in Jasper especially Pyramid on the May long weekend. His favorite lure was a White hair jig made with hair from a polar bear. Jasper was stocked heavy in the past and now most lakes in the park
sit empty...

Red Bullets 10-31-2017 09:47 PM

ice fishing review 1965
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3blade (Post 3655256)
Cool article. My grandpa still tells stories about fishing with George. What things must have been like in those days...:)

Those days... Since it is almost hard water season...... Here is George Mitchell's Ice Fishing Review from 1965. It seems ice fishing had only started becoming popular a couple years before. Note the limits he mentions for each species and the locations.

http://peel.library.ualberta.ca/news...SGB%29%7Cscore


I remember back then... when the fish weren't so smart. haha :)

RavYak 10-31-2017 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Bullets (Post 3656763)
Those days... Since it is almost hard water season...... Here is George Mitchell's Ice Fishing Review from 1965. It seems ice fishing had only started becoming popular a couple years before. Note the limits he mentions for each species and the locations.

http://peel.library.ualberta.ca/news...SGB%29%7Cscore


I remember back then... when the fish weren't so smart. haha :)

Yup ridiculous limits and the biggest problem was that there likely wasn't any size requirements either.

Red Bullets 11-01-2017 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RavYak (Post 3656831)
Yup ridiculous limits and the biggest problem was that there likely wasn't any size requirements either.

You are right. I don't believe there were any size requirements.

And you could use up to 3 lines in summer and 10 tip ups in winter.

RavYak 11-01-2017 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Bullets (Post 3656858)
You are right. I don't believe there were any size requirements.

And you could use up to 3 lines in summer and 10 tip ups in winter.

And probably no possession limits either(or if there was likely not abided by).

But yet lots of people think our lakes are not cable of sustaining any pressure now without them crashing again. The difference in pressure back then compared to now is huge even with our larger population now.

huntsfurfish 11-01-2017 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iYearn (Post 3654617)
That is an amazing article.

The picture says it all: What would it take to get that catch of perch and walleye out of Boyne today?

3 and a half million less people in AB would be a good start. ;):)

58thecat 11-01-2017 05:08 PM

Great year....a fisherman entered the world....:)
Thx mom!

RavYak 11-01-2017 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish (Post 3657199)
3 and a half million less people in AB would be a good start. ;):)

Overall population growth has had little effect on angler populations. During the largest period of growth(last 30 years) the number of anglers has actually decreased...

This report has numbers of estimated anglers in the past, on page 16.

https://www.pembina.org/reports/22_f...d_wildlife.pdf

1961 angler estimate of ~125,000 anglers. By 1975 was around 240,000 anglers and in 80's it peaked at nearly 350,000 anglers.

Compare that to today with around 280,000 anglers as per the following(2015 data).

https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/592f...ersOnePage.pdf

So back in 1965 the time of this article the limits were much higher then they are now with no size limits and likely no possession limits even though there was half as many anglers as there is now...

In the 70's when the number of anglers reached the same level as today the limits were still around 5 times what they are now(I believe it is around that).

But yeah any sort of province wide keep limits today are completely implausible considering our number of anglers now(which is roughly the same as in 1978).

I don't believe it one bit.

Next argument?

huntsfurfish 11-01-2017 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RavYak (Post 3657408)
Overall population growth has had little effect on angler populations. During the largest period of growth(last 30 years) the number of anglers has actually decreased...

This report has numbers of estimated anglers in the past, on page 16.

https://www.pembina.org/reports/22_f...d_wildlife.pdf

1961 angler estimate of ~125,000 anglers. By 1975 was around 240,000 anglers and in 80's it peaked at nearly 350,000 anglers.

Compare that to today with around 280,000 anglers as per the following(2015 data).

https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/592f...ersOnePage.pdf

So back in 1965 the time of this article the limits were much higher then they are now with no size limits and likely no possession limits even though there was half as many anglers as there is now...

In the 70's when the number of anglers reached the same level as today the limits were still around 5 times what they are now(I believe it is around that).

But yeah any sort of province wide keep limits today are completely implausible considering our number of anglers now(which is roughly the same as in 1978).

I don't believe it one bit.

Next argument?

:) not arguing.
Most anglers back then did not travel far to fish or have the equipment they do now(though pickeral rigs worked in both time periods:)). Most fishermen did not come home with limits like those shown either. Weather patterns were different. Fish habitat was better(for the most part). Dont think they were putting a lot of stuff on the crops back then either which finds its way into the water.
Water quality was better. Lots of other reasons too. I was fishing Alberta from the late 50's to present. Population doesnt help. Larger amount of seniors now(dont require licence(dont show as licensed angler)) plus more leisure time to fish now than a person had back then too. Poaching larger issue now as well.
Population isnt the only factor but it is a factor and larger than you might think.

RavYak 11-01-2017 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish (Post 3657575)
:) not arguing.
Most anglers back then did not travel far to fish or have the equipment they do now(though pickeral rigs worked in both time periods:)). Most fishermen did not come home with limits like those shown either. Weather patterns were different. Fish habitat was better(for the most part). Dont think they were putting a lot of stuff on the crops back then either which finds its way into the water.
Water quality was better. Lots of other reasons too. I was fishing Alberta from the late 50's to present. Population doesnt help. Larger amount of seniors now(dont require licence(dont show as licensed angler)) plus more leisure time to fish now than a person had back then too. Poaching larger issue now as well.
Population isnt the only factor but it is a factor and larger than you might think.

Anglers willing to travel farther is an advantage for the fish as it spreads the pressure out more evenly.

The few anglers now that take advantage of technology advancements do have an advantage but most anglers still are very basic and on average don't use fish finders etc. Our fish also have many advantages now too(highly restrictive limits, size restrictions, season closures etc) which negates many of these advantages.

Our angler population hasn't grown that much but one thing that has changed is that a significant portion of that population now fishes for sport rather then food.

Lots of people didn't fill their limits back then but most kept much of what they caught and I can almost guarantee you the pike/walleye kept per angler was significantly higher then it is now(I am guessing at least 10 fold). Many anglers back then could keep more pike/walleye in a day then what most people now keep in a year.

Many people like to say our fisheries would crash if we opened them to even to 1 fish limits with size restrictions but I think all the evidence points to this being very unlikely and the only real dangers come from poaching etc which of course is more prevalent now because it is almost the only way to keep a fish compared to being able to keep almost everything you caught back in the day...

huntsfurfish 11-02-2017 11:55 AM

I have been in favor of one fish limits for a long time. And I am not opposed to tags.

But the closest water to the cities will get fished out then on to the next lake and repeat.

Sloughsharkjigger 11-02-2017 08:04 PM

Great article... the big difference between now and then...

Then: limited ways to communicate to the local folk on what was happening. No access to the waters we did not even know about. Differences in opinions as to what was a good day of fishing was confined to the cleaning station or pool table.

Now: minute by minute reports (with pictures & GPS points) available to all 5 billion people (if you can afford the time to read & understand). Drive the rig, float the quad, jump the snowmobile, fly the drone, hover the helicopter, hire the guide or just refer to google maps to find the spot...

Either way it's still a whole lot of fun...

SNAPFisher 11-03-2017 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sloughsharkjigger (Post 3658410)
Great article... the big difference between now and then...

Then: limited ways to communicate to the local folk on what was happening. No access to the waters we did not even know about. Differences in opinions as to what was a good day of fishing was confined to the cleaning station or pool table.

Now: minute by minute reports (with pictures & GPS points) available to all 5 billion people (if you can afford the time to read & understand). Drive the rig, float the quad, jump the snowmobile, fly the drone, hover the helicopter, hire the guide or just refer to google maps to find the spot...

Either way it's still a whole lot of fun...


Yes. Good points. And factors for sure. I would add one more.

I know there are some on here that dont believe in the current limits and think a one fish limit, even slot, would work. But the more I think about it I think they are looking at it at the wrong time to think such a change is possible. Certainly by region, it might be the case in some regions but not province-wide. Water levels are cyclical and we are unquestionably in a time of lower water levels. That die was cast over the past couple of decades.

From my own experience, take the NB1 region. Here are lakes I used to fish and no longer do:
  • FloatingStone
  • Lower Mann
  • Upper Mann
  • Vincent
  • Chickenhill
  • Frenchman
  • Cache
  • Bonnie
  • Muriel
  • Lottie

Why? Because of water levels. Either they are not even fishable any longer or are pretty much not worth the effort. Water quality is for sure diminished but destroyed would describe it better.

I just picked 10 off the top of my head and I m sure there are others that could be added. Also, maybe some people still fish some of these lakes but I can assure you that they have changed drastically. Especially over the past 10 years. Some of them completely dead and devoid of fish glorified sloughs.

So of you take that old stat of 312 anglers per lake. I think it was calculated as:

250,000 anglers, 800 lakes = 312.5 anglers per lake

Now subtract the 10 I mentioned and assume the same number of anglers

250,000 anglers, 790 lakes = 316.5 anglers per lake.

I wonder what the province-wide number of fishable lakes is now? It is certainly less than 800. It really is the bigger factor/impact than anglers . If there are less lakes to fish, more pressure on the bigger and deeper lakes will occur. Raising limits on these particular lakes, at a time of low water levels and less fishable lakes, is a poor decision in my books.

Sloughsharkjigger 11-03-2017 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher (Post 3658842)
Yes. Good points. And factors for sure. I would add one more.

I know there are some on here that dont believe in the current limits and think a one fish limit, even slot, would work. But the more I think about it I think they are looking at it at the wrong time to think such a change is possible. Certainly by region, it might be the case in some regions but not province-wide. Water levels are cyclical and we are unquestionably in a time of lower water levels. That die was cast over the past couple of decades.

From my own experience, take the NB1 region. Here are lakes I used to fish and no longer do:
  • FloatingStone
  • Lower Mann
  • Upper Mann
  • Vincent
  • Chickenhill
  • Frenchman
  • Cache
  • Bonnie
  • Muriel
  • Lottie

Why? Because of water levels. Either they are not even fishable any longer or are pretty much not worth the effort. Water quality is for sure diminished but destroyed would describe it better.

I just picked 10 off the top of my head and I m sure there are others that could be added. Also, maybe some people still fish some of these lakes but I can assure you that they have changed drastically. Especially over the past 10 years. Some of them completely dead and devoid of fish glorified sloughs.

So of you take that old stat of 312 anglers per lake. I think it was calculated as:

250,000 anglers, 800 lakes = 312.5 anglers per lake

Now subtract the 10 I mentioned and assume the same number of anglers

250,000 anglers, 790 lakes = 316.5 anglers per lake.

I wonder what the province-wide number of fishable lakes is now? It is certainly less than 800. It really is the bigger factor/impact than anglers . If there are less lakes to fish, more pressure on the bigger and deeper lakes will occur. Raising limits on these particular lakes, at a time of low water levels and less fishable lakes, is a poor decision in my books.


Ahh... Bonnie Lake... learned how to swim in that lake. Late 70's early 80's was a awesome perch lake and had more bite offs from Northerns than I care to remember... what am I thinking it was probably cheap line.

Good point on decreased water levels in what was habitat. Seems like there is a trend originating in the south and east of Alberta and slowly moving north. Grandparents farm had a lake that was about 50acres in size that was home to hundreds of uplands every fall.... all gone now.

gloszz 11-07-2017 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Bullets (Post 3654603)
Came across this old article with sort of a fishing report for 1965. Not much has changed. What do you think? The only thing I noticed is there were no walleye in Calling back then, according to what the author says.

http://peel.library.ualberta.ca/news...SGC%29%7Cscore

I'm only 24 so can't comment how times have changed. But how times have changed haha most of those lakes are empty now. Lac sante is only good for burbot. Devils lake has stunted pike and perch. Moose lake is almost fished out. :angry3:

3blade 11-07-2017 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher (Post 3658842)
Yes. Good points. And factors for sure. I would add one more.

I know there are some on here that dont believe in the current limits and think a one fish limit, even slot, would work. But the more I think about it I think they are looking at it at the wrong time to think such a change is possible. Certainly by region, it might be the case in some regions but not province-wide. Water levels are cyclical and we are unquestionably in a time of lower water levels. That die was cast over the past couple of decades.

From my own experience, take the NB1 region. Here are lakes I used to fish and no longer do:
  • FloatingStone
  • Lower Mann
  • Upper Mann
  • Vincent
  • Chickenhill
  • Frenchman
  • Cache
  • Bonnie
  • Muriel
  • Lottie

Why? Because of water levels. Either they are not even fishable any longer or are pretty much not worth the effort. Water quality is for sure diminished but destroyed would describe it better.

I just picked 10 off the top of my head and I m sure there are others that could be added. Also, maybe some people still fish some of these lakes but I can assure you that they have changed drastically. Especially over the past 10 years. Some of them completely dead and devoid of fish glorified sloughs.

So of you take that old stat of 312 anglers per lake. I think it was calculated as:

250,000 anglers, 800 lakes = 312.5 anglers per lake

Now subtract the 10 I mentioned and assume the same number of anglers

250,000 anglers, 790 lakes = 316.5 anglers per lake.

I wonder what the province-wide number of fishable lakes is now? It is certainly less than 800. It really is the bigger factor/impact than anglers . If there are less lakes to fish, more pressure on the bigger and deeper lakes will occur. Raising limits on these particular lakes, at a time of low water levels and less fishable lakes, is a poor decision in my books.

Agree with the list. However, Moose lake was at near record high water levels this year. Why? It's feeder streams are intact. If you look at the areas around Mann and Muriel, they are heavily developed and have multiple interruptions to the natural flow of water.

There is the eutrophication process to consider as well which is natural but not at the rate we are seeing. Many lakes have been tipped over the edge by nitrogen run off from agriculture.

SNAPFisher 11-07-2017 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3blade (Post 3661916)
Agree with the list. However, Moose lake was at near record high water levels this year. Why? It's feeder streams are intact. If you look at the areas around Mann and Muriel, they are heavily developed and have multiple interruptions to the natural flow of water.

There is the eutrophication process to consider as well which is natural but not at the rate we are seeing. Many lakes have been tipped over the edge by nitrogen run off from agriculture.

Yep, completely agree. There is no new water flowing into these lakes anymore. Muriel and Mann are great examples.

Muriel my family had a lake front cabin on there in the 70s and 80s. Grew up fishing the South East bay where there was a feeder stream. That small stream reared many pike and other fish. I went back in 1995 and had to pole the boat through a small opening into maybe 3-4 inches of water left in the entire bay. That is a drop, even back then, of 10 feet. Though it was interesting to see all the structure we used to fish it was sad to see it emptied. There was a nice feeder stream to the South that used to rear a lot of nice little pike and other fish, gone now. The island we fished around was now a new point. And that was 95! Looked at a cabin back in 2000 on the South side. Supposed lake front It was a 2 km walk out to the middle of the lake to find water. That bay was dry too.

Had a cabin on Upper Mann up to 2 years ago. Even in 2000/2001 it was great fishing but the feeder creek was done and it killed off in 2002. Since then I watched the water level drop by 1-2 feet every year until the old boat launches were abandoned and the sides turned to smelly mud. Last time I checked it was down over 10 feet. In the winter of 2014 I drilled 2 holes a foot apart and dropped the cam down one and a jig and minnow down the other. Could barely make it out in the milky colored water....so done.

ROA 11-07-2017 08:22 AM

Moose is fished out? I've never fished it but was planning on it due to the fact you can keep a walleye. But wait..... You mean a lake that allows walleye to be kept is fished out? No, no there must be pig pike and lots of perch because of the low walleye numbers? No? Gee there must be a lesson here.

mooseknuckle 11-07-2017 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher (Post 3658842)
Yes. Good points. And factors for sure. I would add one more.

I know there are some on here that dont believe in the current limits and think a one fish limit, even slot, would work. But the more I think about it I think they are looking at it at the wrong time to think such a change is possible. Certainly by region, it might be the case in some regions but not province-wide. Water levels are cyclical and we are unquestionably in a time of lower water levels. That die was cast over the past couple of decades.

From my own experience, take the NB1 region. Here are lakes I used to fish and no longer do:
  • FloatingStone
  • Lower Mann
  • Upper Mann
  • Vincent
  • Chickenhill
  • Frenchman
  • Cache
  • Bonnie
  • Muriel
  • Lottie

Why? Because of water levels. Either they are not even fishable any longer or are pretty much not worth the effort. Water quality is for sure diminished but destroyed would describe it better.

I just picked 10 off the top of my head and I m sure there are others that could be added. Also, maybe some people still fish some of these lakes but I can assure you that they have changed drastically. Especially over the past 10 years. Some of them completely dead and devoid of fish glorified sloughs.

So of you take that old stat of 312 anglers per lake. I think it was calculated as:

250,000 anglers, 800 lakes = 312.5 anglers per lake

Now subtract the 10 I mentioned and assume the same number of anglers

250,000 anglers, 790 lakes = 316.5 anglers per lake.

I wonder what the province-wide number of fishable lakes is now? It is certainly less than 800. It really is the bigger factor/impact than anglers . If there are less lakes to fish, more pressure on the bigger and deeper lakes will occur. Raising limits on these particular lakes, at a time of low water levels and less fishable lakes, is a poor decision in my books.

Interesting. We had a cabin on the north west side of lower mann lake in the 80's. I was just a lad, however I remember it being really good fishing!! Good times, the lake is a slew now. Would need decades of heavy snow fall to get back.

bobalong 11-07-2017 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RavYak (Post 3657635)


Many people like to say our fisheries would crash if we opened them to even to 1 fish limits with size restrictions but I think all the evidence points to this being very unlikely and the only real dangers come from poaching etc which of course is more prevalent now because it is almost the only way to keep a fish compared to being able to keep almost everything you caught back in the day...

Opening some fisheries for only a two week period has been tried already. Test netting was done on Long Lake a few years and F/W decided to try a 1 over 50cm walleye per day limit in that two week period. They went back after the two weeks and did another test net and did not catch one walleye over 50cm.

This is the reason they do not have open limits on walleye lakes, for even a two week period. I am not sure what "all this evidence" is that your talking about as I have never seen any.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.