Quote:
Originally Posted by jusfloatin
First off let me assure you my intent is not to stir the pot as you put it but rather voice my concerns of what I feel is a lake truly deserving of intense discussions of any proposed changes.
I am very protective of this and the lower K as I have been fishing the upper/lower K on a regular bases for at least 10 years and in the last year alone you could see me and my all white runabout out there at least a couple dozen times.
Yes I do/will keep what I am legally allowed to.
You ask me for scientific facts to back up my claims are you meaning
where I say there will be a big influx of new people fishing there because of these changes (would it not change if it was to turn into the "Quality Fishery" you keep hearing)
where I say with them that there will be an increase of litter ( when in time has litter problems go down when more people come)
where I say that about it turning into a C&R for the first 3 years,( it will seem like that because there are 50+ out there but I would not expectto catch 1 every time you go out)
Sundance as for your plea about Correcting me.
I have called you on several of my posts where you have misquoted, read into or just posted untruths of where I have fished to how much I enjoyed it.
You have taken snippets from my comments and embellished them to create a totally different meaning to suit your case.
I have no problem discussing views but when I have to spend more time correcting your post of what I supposedly have posted it is time to withdraw from this thread.
The reason I decided to first post in this thread was because of my concern for a lake that I consider to be a hair away from paradise and what my thoughts of what would happen to the jewel if these changes were to come into effect.
If there were sufficient amount of officers out there checking possessions and size limits we would not need these changes to start with.
|
jusfloatin
I too have provided information to you to corrected your assumptions which are the reasons you are negative on this idea. I am also never opposed to correcting myself and admitting when I erred. Hence may past responses on that. Still the facts do speak for themselves. Just the common sense aspect of this discussion is strongly for the new regs. Even many of your personal negatives show proof positive as to the intended outcome of the regulations.
Your concerns to date...
1
Environmental impact to lake: There is no impact on the lake environment as a result of these regs. I get the impression you spend a lot of time out there. Are you a park employee? If so...I am jealous. As these lakes have always had fish in them there is nothing special. As you already approve of the stocking program for 12 inchers that shows you don't have a problem with those introductions to the lake. Allowing nature to grow them bigger after stocking will not make them eat anything different...just make them bigger.
2
Line up to off load and load the boat: I still have not hear of a ton of boat usage out here. Most people will either fish from shore, in pontoon/belly boats versus boat launching. There is tons of shore line to fish from...loads of room to give everyone space...I have only ever fished it from shore or in my belly boat and had a great scenic day...albeit with not a lot of fish. That will soon change! If there is more people wanting to launch boats then all things being fair people will get along and launch their boats. If people help each other if will probably even go faster.
3
Parking issues: There are lots of access points and lots of parking. Parking has never been a problem here. Chances are the available parking will finally get used. You can also car pool to get out there.
4
The litter: With more fishermen around...more hikers and picicker's litter will get picked up. More traffic will mean better servicing by parks and probably better patrolling! With all due respect...I don't feel it is fair to single out and say fishermen will destroy the park with litter. I am part of the solution and not the problem and always take a bag with me to pack out not only my litter but others as well. Bait litter is usually the primary source which is not used here. Most litter I find is from picnickers and hikers and NOT fishermen. Still lead by example. A clean park stays clean way easier.
5
Traffic: Kind of redundant to parking as the two come hand in hand. Still remembering this is a long ways from Calgary still...just the closest suitable lake for implementing these regs...there will hopefully be more people. If the regs are positive to the fishery then we will have more people fishing there. Fishermen will drive in first thing and leave at dusk. Therefore not a lot of additional traffic. Plus we are not talking about thousands of people a day so you have to be careful not to exaggerate this a being a problem. Traffic will also be dispersed to the various access points. Increased fishermen will watch the water for pollution and also poaching. There is lots of parking that is often empty. If we get more fishermen coming then they can use some of those unfilled parking spots.
6
Dirty water: What is the motor law and how many motor boats do you see on the lake typically? I don't know many guys that would urinate out on the water in a tube. They mostly go to shore. I would say the reams of hikers probably add more urine that the occasional fisherman. Understanding also that there are reservoirs that flush lot of water out each year...I would not be concerned about the very low potential of build up. And actually...a little more nitrogen would help the bugs you are worried about. :-). This is also a very weak argument as I have seen many hikers stepping off the trail around the lake and not to smell a flower. Again...if looking at the arguments...this one is tough to agree with.
7. You also have stated you like fishing where others are not. That means you like it less crowded which is understandable. You are so far only applying arguments that are increased usage points which means that you agree these regulations will increase the numbers of people fishing. This and only this argument that you have provided so far is IMHO an obvious fact we can't ignore. I agree with you...there will be more people using the Park so it is true you will have more people fishing around you. Now the question is...is it 5 people a day more, 10 people a day more...or 25 people a day more. Remember it is still further from Calgary than the Bow River. I strongly suspect...while day trips will increase...people using the campgrounds will use the lake more for fishing also. While that will not increase traffic etc...it will increase on the water fishing time.
8. Lake will be catch and release for a while: This is only partially true... There are still trout from past stockings in the lakes and those will have a chance to continue to grow. Once nature has done its role and raise the trout up to 20 inches we can then harvest. There will be some available short term with an increasing percentage available long term. These regulations will also increase the available number of trout for catching and therefore increase catch rates over all. This was proved with the 7 times increase in catch rates between the last regulation change that effectively did the same thing being proposed now with the exception of going from 3 to 1 fish limit (still one 20 inch trout is twice the weight of 3 smaller ones) and 20 inch minimum size up from 12 inch.
9. Rampant poaching decimating the trout populations: Now I am reading your post above. It is hard to estimate how many early stocked trout are poached versus just heavily targeted on a daily basis after stocking. There is a mentality of greed amongst some people regardless of the commodity they are coveting. That being said when there is a yearly supply of trout to catch that people can catch with more confidence...then there will be less drive to take it before someone else does. There will be better sense of being a protector of the resource rather than an illegal exploiter. With an increase in anglers also comes an increase in eyes and cell phones. Poachers like to operate on a lake that no one else fishes much. Lake like Mt. Lorette get targeted hard after stocking (decimated within weeks) because it is the way the regulations have educated Albertans to act. We stock and they you kill as fast as possible. Little short, medium and long term value to the stocking practices save for the few first out to claim their share...
In summary...
Saying you want to stop improving the fishery because an extra number of fishermen make the trek to UKL and LKL to fish is IMHO a very weak argument. There are tons more hikers, picnickers and other users than fishermen. It is a multi use area which is different than the single use lake like Bullshead. To preach reduced usage of the park is somewhat selfish.
http://www.tpr.alberta.ca/parks/kana...mitted_act.asp . How many additional fishermen do you think will fish these two large lakes on an average daily basis?
I guess the frustrating part of your arguments is that they are based upon weak assumptions and/or selfish reasons...versus the improvement of the overall fishery for the average future user. Therefore I know you can not be swayed on this topic due to the personal nature of your position on the topic.
I still believe you are free to take this position and I am sure you have voted on the poll accordingly. If there is any half truths or you take exception to what I have taken from your posts to date...please explain in detail as with anything...communication is key but without much facts in your posts we can only deduce your intended meaning. I understand your overall comment about wanting to protect this area...but sorry to tell you...you have no choice but to share it. It is public land and a public park.
Sun