Quote:
Originally Posted by wind drift
I think we have a warped perspective on natural abundance of fish and species interactions. We have no idea what our lakes were like pre-settlement. Everything we think we know about our fish comes from a time of exploitation, in many cases spectacular overharvest, and forced recovery. In theory, why would species that have coexisted since the glaciers receded not coexist now? We fully protect walleye in many lakes for 20-plus years while still allowing harvest of pike, then wonder why there are more walleye than pike...and then proceed to blame the walleye for the situation, or cormorants, or dry years, or comets, or demonic intrusion, etc. I think we have to be objective and consider that most of what our fisheries are today is due to us, and most of what we know is based on untestable observations, stories and stories about stories.
|
I think that is a reasonable perspective but also painting with a broad brush. Some lakes do not seem to handle the introduction of a predator like walleye as well as others. Maybe Sylvan would eventually come into balance if things were left as is but how long do you want to wait? 10 years? 20 years? With a "1 any size" limit the goal isn't a baby walleye fishery. It's to thin them right out and help things along.
How many of you took the fisheries survey that had a number of central Alberta lakes involved, including Sylvan. There was some very specific questions in that survey regarding where the management should go for Sylvan. Did you want a walleye fishery or a pike fishery? Just curious honestly.