View Single Post
  #51  
Old 01-09-2011, 03:49 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
5 percent of anglers catch 5 percent of the fish. The others die from shock from moving from a climate controlled tank and into a waterbody, winter,summerkill, predators who fish all day when no anglers are around and water quality such as alkalinity.

Sun said,


Simple answer...surprised you missed it...the Bow, Crow and Oldman are a long ways away...have great fishing but only because of stricter regulations that limit harvest.


I guess it s not the forage base and many feeder spawing streams that feed it. With all the crud Calgary feeds that river with, the bugs abound and fish feed easily and spawn in one of 2 major systems. its not better regulations that made it that way, it was Poop that did it. Along with the oldman and the crow. Talked about that lots on the FF calgary board. So no, I didnt help you and your point. You discredited yourself.


People dont want to go to Elbow lake and catch stunted Brookies, they want to drive right up to shore along k lakes and get a better view and slightly larger fish with a nice picnic area and boatlaunch. Maybee to make k lakes a quality fishery you can advertize your SINGLE, closed system example of where kids can fish, and they will all leave k lakes alone. Is that the only example of a healthy closed system you have? How about one without brookies? I thought invasives were off topic?


In another thread, you used saving tax dollars as an incentive to sign your petition. So yes, it will take money from the fisheries as a whole. Less takes to spend on it, the less the government has to pay. Thanks for that, its you helping my arguements now. Nice job.


You also said...


We can't continue to ignore lakes.


No, we cant, but some dont need as much care as others. K lakes doesnt need squat. How about the lakes in the rest of the province, now theres where we need help. Fixing them will keep people away from K lakes.

you added...

Thanks for the chat and I look forward to you providing some quality information about this proposed quality fishery.


I havent seen any quality information from you yet. Not a stick! A few others here see that also. Except for bullshead examples, and with that example, makes the comparison between 2 different lakes in 2 different regions and 2 different size of waterbodies. The fish stocked now just feed the bulls. Lots of big bulls in that lake!


These quality fisheries you want should be made where few opp's exist. thats not it the mountains, lots of quality already. These quality fisheries should be in Potholes on the prairies. Where no opp's exist. Lots of places to do that to and theres no quality fisheries surrounding them now.


HunterDave wrote....

Although I admire and respect your determination in lobbying for this proposal, without studying the social, economic and environmental impacts of it first, how can anyone support it? Has anyone even contacted SRD to determine what the impact would be of having more larger fish in the lakes? Or, why the current regulation is in place to allow people to catch "eater" sized fish? How would this newly proposed regulation effect tourism and the local economy? There is a ton of more information that you need in order to be taken seriously. I'm sorry, but IMHO right now it just sounds like a few good 'ol boys got together on a Friday night over a few wobbly pops and came up with a plan to help them catch bigger fish.


Man, I couldnt agree more. Big boys want bigger fish to brag about.



I agree with quality fisheries But not in the mountains, Prairie potholes from north to south, yes.


I agree more with predator control before more regs.


You thanked me for helping your case Sun, but I must thank you for helping mine show how much your just saying anything now to rally the troops to sign this petition. Your flawed data and arguments only bolster that fact.


STEELHEAD
So your logic and facts tell you 95% of the fish stocked die before being caught? Strange...no studies have ever showed that fact before. It is not true.

Bow River fish grow big because of the food supply...again...not part of the topic. The reason why the population is high is because of the regulations limiting harvest. It proves that if you can grow them big then you can catch them big. Same as LKL and UKL.

You are right people would prefer to catch small fish that are easier to access by car then having to walk for a while to get to. We all know that. But then again...there are all the other lakes a poster listed that have excellent access to put and take trout. If you wanted a larger lake...Chain Lakes has tons.

You say that it is not the regulations that define the population of trout in the Bow River. Then you would state if their was no limit there would be the same number of trout to catch as their is now. I guess that is a fundamental fisheries management fact that we don't agree on. I believe the population of trout is defined by the controlled harvest. Uncontrolled harvest destroys the fishery. I wish you were correct...then every uncontrolled fishery in the World would be corrected over night.

Better spending tax payers dollars can mean stocking the same number of fish but allowing them to let nature grow them to a larger size before harvest. If there is a savings on trout that don't need to be stocked...why not put those extra fish into the smaller put and take lakes so that there are more freshly stocked 12 inchers for people? Who says not stocking them. The benefit to tax payers is a better quality fishery...hopefully for less money. What is wrong with that? I am all for less taxes. Still I want more money in the system...not less... But by making this a better fishery is not a vote for less money. You digress.

You like UKL and LKL as a small trout put and take fishery. Your right to that position is understandable. I hope you understand others rights to expect better than that. I hope in time... the regulations come into effect and you will appreciate it all the more.

You keep talking about predator control like you are against people harvesting. It could also mean you are against poachers. I am in favor of harvest and against poaching. However...I don't feel poachers are the root cause of over harvest. If you have a large population like Calgary near by...it does not take long to harvest the fish. On Allen Bill pond...one day I counted 100 people fishing a few days after stocking. Everyone was fishing...many were catching...almost all were harvesting. At 5 trout per person...if I recall the regs...it did not take too many weeks to harvest them all out. No poaching was necessary and 3 weeks later the lake was a ghost town.

You still support the regulations with your logic...you are adept at trying to twist the points but in the end hopefully people read enough to know for themselves what makes common sense and intuitively fits the puzzle.

If you stock 12 inch trout...people harvest them sooner than putting a 20 inch limit and allowing them to grow. Bullshead proved this works...that can not be contradicted as it is a proven fact.

It is a sad fact in Alberta we fight to preserve our 12 inch fisheries where in BC they fight to increase trout sizes. We have members lambasting this initiative yet leave the Province to fish Kootenay Lake for big rainbows. That leaves little option for larger quality fish near Calgary. Right now 3.5 - 4 hour drive is common for many desperately seeking larger fish but they travel to Bullshead. In time hopefully UKL and LKL will provide a similar fishery.

Sun
Reply With Quote