[GaryF]

Top 10 reasons why its a bad idea.


1. Protected specie in lake (bulls). Possible miss-identification of species causing harm to protected fish. I agree this could be a problem, but since they exist already in the lakes as you state in item 3 the problem is neglegible if they are growing to well over the proposed size limit already. Large signs at the entrances to these lakes explaining what a bull trout is will help this.

2. Small percentage of park users are anglers. With so many quality fisheries existing, rise in angling on lake will show no marketable rise. Please tell me which lakes you are classifying as quality, and what your definition of quality is.

3. This lake has show to already be a quality fishery. Bulls can be caught with great regularity and well over the Quality size. Please refer to item 5 of your list. Can you catch fish regularily or not in K Lakes?

4. Flawed and out of date catch data the base of reasons why this is a good choice for a quality lake. Proper and in depth yearly research for a number of years before quality fishery should be designated. If this petition gets that started by showing the interest in making this a special regs lake, its a positive first step. They won't just make a change because of a petition, but it will ge the ball rolling.

5. Depths of species in summer months are generally too deep for shore anglers to have advertized higher catch rates. Thats the nature of those 2 species. See Item 3 in your list.

6. Downstream migration of fish possible and will result in a loss of fish. All other choices for quality fisheries are closed systems. Bullhead is a resevoir with and overflow spillway. You have stated it is a closed system, which it is not. So unfortunately this argument is not applicable here, as you seem to agree that bullshead is a quality fishery now.

7. Forage base for the larger fish this lake will produce is comprimised due to fluctuating water levels. If over population of large fish occurs, leaner less healthy fish. Is there a study of this somewhere that I can read so there is some backing up of this statement?

8. Stocking of cutts in a system containing Bulls. You are stocking the top of the list, main prey of bulltrout. Bull trout will feed on newly stocked and lake stupid fish. Great potential for loss of stocked fish. This is already being done. But you are insisting that K lakes is already a quality fishery as is with the current stocking and regulations, so you are contradicting yourself.

9. Because of the distance from border crossings into BC and Sask., and the small populations in these other provinces close to these crossings, potential for out of province visitors to use this resource is slim to nil. Many quality fisheries close to these crossings to accomodate out of provincers. As with my one post on that snippet from the SRD Meeting, the concern is for local and regional anglers, not visitors. I could care less if anyone from outside of AB comes to fish these lakes. Sure would be nice to not have to drive 4 hours from home tho to get to a quality fishery. and yes I have explained my view already on what one is to me.

10. Quality lakes were and are made to fit where no oppourtunities existed in the past and in closed systems. (bullshead-med hat, muir-edmonton,) This site is surrounded by many quality fisheries already. Not much of a draw for visitors when other places exist with less visitors to encounter on an outing. I refer back to my comments in items 2 and 9

Hunterdave, still waiting on your list pls. Everything you have asked for has been attempted to be given to you, so now in all fairness I still am waiting on your list.