View Single Post
  #318  
Old 03-04-2011, 09:07 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 19,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Sure speckle.......bring common sense into it. Kinda like putting 1000 head of cattle on a quarter of land for the summer isn't it?

Just take a look at the Muir Lake "quality" fishery experiment. The rocket chemists got together and decided to create a "quality" lake there because SRD would let them have it and not because it was the right lake to do it in. It was a dead lake anyway and not worth stocking it so why not? It's an 80 acre slew that they are now trying to grow trophy sized fish in. Now I'm no fish doctor but I can pretty much figure out that it'll take more than a couple of aerators in a slew to keep any amount of reasonable sized fish alive in there let alone a large number of big ones.

Now that Muir Lake has failed to live up to expectations, the people that supported creating it in the first place are all pointing fingers to place the blame on why it didn't work. It's SRD fault for putting too many stocked fish in there, yada, yada, yada. We all know what the reality is though.....HEELLLOOO!

Muir Lake likely won't be shut down because it was a dead lake in the first place but there is currently a resolution to close down the "quality" fishery at Police Lake. Pro "quality" fishery fellas even openly admit that they don't consider 15 of the 17 "quality" trout fisheries in Alberta "quality" fisheries! So what's the solution they say......create more "quality" lakes.

Be happy that you're an Alberta Redneck because we're in the majority when it comes to giving up our lakes so a bunch of city fellas can try to make it easy for themselves to catch big fish.

BTW Great "outside the box" idea about putting in the big fish that are already grown to that size.
Lots more hot air from Dave...but no facts.

Dave's idea of making a change is only if it works perfectly...immediately and not requiring any tweaking is hardly how anything is learned or improved. Dave...you should be an inventor. All your ideas must be perfect genius each time.

Obviously with the lack of experience starting these up here in Alberta there should be a period of adjustment to the process. Benefits will be obtained for future lakes via what is learned on past lakes. There will always be Daves of the world that demand we bow to their will and greedy self benefiting to ensure 10 lakes are at their beck and call for filling their freezers but NO WAY should we allow any lakes to the >90% that want something better, more challenging, more exciting. Dave has freely stated that his only desire is to catch many, many EASY to catch small fish. Anything that changes that is bad. Catching larger fish is a crazy, crappy idea that he does not endorse. Good on him. There will always be lakes like that to fill a niche.

Lots of hot air Dave to try and dismiss all the great effort people are doing to make fishing better for you whether you know it or not.

Your mentality of stock the crap out of everything needs to be shaken out of the tree. This is especially true for making a fishery with a higher average size trout in it. You agree with the stock the crap out of the lakes scenario as it is the only way to meet your logic. Stocking the crap out of the lakes keeps the kill rate high at 5...depletes the food resources...and keep the trout small. You comment positively about comparing cattle ranching and carrying capacity to trout in a lake. You are so true. To fix that problem you put fewer trout in the lake and in turn they grow bigger. Because there is fewer trout the limits have to be less. That is the balance you agree to on one hand yet fight against so valiantly on the other. Not sure what you call that when you agree to disagree with yourself?

F&W will get it right...but unfortunately they are still trying to bow to the likes of Dave's era...and over stocked the quality lakes. They have realized the error and corrected it. That has been discussed and Dave's concern was earlier dismissed. But still Dave...you have to bring up old arguments till you grow red in the face.

One of your poorer attempts at diversion.

IMHO

Sun
Reply With Quote