Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave
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! 
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.  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.