Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin.C
Ok I see what you are saying..I did not know that...As for spawning grounds you could say yhere are lots of spawning grounds in that lake so why only one spot??? Also why can you keep any walleye during this period????
|
This is a question that has been asked numerous times in this thread, with myself included in asking it. It's a good question, and it's one that makes this regulation change very strange.... There hasn't been any data provided, in this thread or to people searching for it by asking around, that supports the closure of only the west arm. As was pointed out earlier in this thread by the people/organizations pushing for and supporting this closure, the closure is to protect the spawning walleye- pre, during, and post. And as you've noted, along with others in here, the west arm isn't the only spawning grounds in Travers... So if the reason for closure is to protect spawning walleye, why pin point only the west arm?? Unless there is some underlying motive, it baffles me to be honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter
First off, i applaud everyone in this thread for keeping cool heads and avoiding a lock down. Thank You.
(except for the obvious 1 and 2 post alters)
Some of posters seem to have a huge dislike for the SRD, which may be founded for whatever personal reasons they may have.
Some have posted their personal discussions on what SRD has told them, e.g. "That the arm is not a major spawning area", that comment alone is confussing and lessens the credibilty of this change.
Although i respect that certain clubs claim to have pushed this reg change thru, I want the data from SRD that backs this reg change, data which has been refussed to us. Proper data that gives us the best options for the lake's health. Data that indicates population numbers,fishing pressure,year classes,areas of the lake that need special consideration, etc etc.
Without the data and paper trail i fail to see SRD's purpose or function concerning OUR fish.
My issue has been from the beginning a issue of transperancy. All though i back this reg change in part as it is written. As a fisherman of Travers for over 40 years i see a problem. Is my issue with certain clubs an special interest groups?, not really but there appears to be some evidence in this thread that may indicate they know more than average joe blow fisherman.
Am i against tournament fisherman? Not in the least, they provide a competitive avenue for the sport and its open to all. Would i like to see the next Gary Parsons be a Alberta fisherman....fore sure!!!
I have kept fairly detailed notes every year on how my fishing is on Travers for the past 23 years, open and ice. I wish i had scribbles going back further.
The main concern i have with the past 3 years is the lack of certain year classes, so lacking i believe they are almost non exsistant.
Do i believe the eyes use the Arm for spawning...absolutely. Is it their only spawn site....Absolutely not. Is it their optimum area for success....Absolutely Yes. The arm provides the temp range for spawning early in the year. It provides the bottom substrate that walleyes will spawn on. Waters near and on route provide ideal pre and post spawn areas, waters that provide forage and depth.
Do they use other spawn areas? Yes and in fact i know of 2 areas they didnt use 10 years ago. Are those fish forced to spawn else where because of the Arm's traffic? Is it weather related?
I mearly want the facts from the people who should know or are suppose to know. The data they used to suggest this reg change should answer my questions and we will continue to try find the data
Not a crybaby , poor me post...just a update that i havent given up. When i do find out any info.....I will share it with everyone, because those fish belong to EVERYONE
|
Good post Chubm thanks for being an "investigative reporter" with all this! Much appreciated! Hopefully your digging will bring to light some answers to all questions surrounding this closure.