[steelhead]

Sun wrote...


Answer...because from a management perspective it makes more sense in some places than all places.


So, in an area with an abundance of trout fishing in streams and lakes, Why does it make sense to make a quality fishery in K lakes? The rivers have huge fish too. Theres probably more trout anglers on the rivers than will be on that lake (and hiding from the watchfull eye of any enforcement). Now, I can understand a quality fishery on the prairies miles from quality trout, but why in the heartland of trout fishing? Keep the lakes for the kids to catch some dinks, the rivers are managed very well for the monsters they hold. On the prairies, good, in the mountains, bad.

The less they have to stock these lakes, the more eyes they have from anglers watching poachers, the more non-government agencies get involved the less the gov has to put money too. And, we see a lower budget. Pretty clear to me. its been getting lower in the last 15 years too. The less the gov has to do, the less they have to pay. Damn clear to me.

sun also wrote....

The Bow River for instance is a fishery that does not get stocked. Does fine. The Crowsnest is not stocked. The Oldman is not stocked. All these fisheries are going well without stocking. A put and take lake with no natural spawning...requires stocking.

They were all stocked at one time. With invasive species at the top of the list of invasives. They wanted a quality fishery back then too i guess.


You are using river ecosystems as an example to compare to lakes with no waterflow or a closed system. Your a BIO, you should know better. You cant compare the 2, at all, no way. That position doesnt stand, at all, no way. You just mentioned rivers, any lakes you care to share with the same successes as your river examples?


STEELHEAD