Imo more funding would not necessarily help and any extra funding could be used in much more productive areas such as increasing enforcement, repairing waterways(like the rivers they want to close now) etc.
Thats just a cop out same with Brandonkop. More money for better testing intervals might have actually eliminated the need to shut down many of those waters!Still talking walleye, enforcement would be another good use for more and larger budget.
I think the netting every 5 years as they currently do(for the most part) is reasonable. I just wish they did a better job of doing every lake within that time period. Extra netting for lakes like Pigeon etc to try and stay on top of the tag system has led to some lakes not being netted in years. Some of which like say Calling could provide valuable information about other walleye management strategies(hence maybe why it hasn't been netted recently?).
Highly disagree, see answer above. Your answer(second line on)would benefit/solve your issue from more money. lol
A slot size does not have to be for prime eating size fish. A slot is simply a range and it can be set in a number of ways.
Minimum size limits work, AEP told us this and there are reports that say this as well. They and C&R were successfully used to recover our walleye fisheries here in AB. The problem with them is that they lead to smaller fish because all the bigger fish are taken out leading to only small fish remaining which causes genetic stunting over time. They call this the hockey stick effect because a lake will create a self imposed size limit and the fish will appear to flatline at that size regardless of age(due to being naturally smaller fish just like short humans).
Am aware of how slots work. Could possibly help to create quality walleye fisheries in some instances.
If you want some light reading on the subject one of our provinces bios did a report on different options and there is a lot of good information on what does and doesn't work and the potential and actual effects of changing limits on lakes in Alberta.
https://era.library.ualberta.ca/file...ing%202010.pdf
This was a well executed program and it does clearly show that limits of 43 cm max, 43 cm min and slot limits of 40-50 cm are not effective but to me that doesn't mean anything as I would never expect those limits to be effective on areas with significant fishing pressure because they all mean too many young fish are removed.
Agree
One other major thing that was also not taken into account in this study was the effects due to the micro management of a few waterbodies while many other lakes had restrictive regulations. The effects of this are clear in his studies when he comments on how the pressure decreased on Smoke and skyrocketed on Iosegun with the changes implemented and then how the pressure returned to Smoke after Iosegun was fished to unsatisfactory levels.
What I would like to see is the effects of a province wide slot size that starts at at least 45 cm if not 50 cm and only 1 fish for most lakes(there are a few that can sustain higher though). There are only 2 lakes in AB that I know of with such regulations and both have healthy balanced walleye populations. I believe with the proper upper slot limit size that some fish would survive through the slot and then be able to reproduce for many more years allowing their spawn to compete against the hockey stick population. No matter what changes are made(slot, minimum sizes etc) I believe they have to be made province wide as it balances the fishing pressure.
The argument for the tag system is that it allows the ability to control the fish size/populations but as is clearly laid out in the report it is costly and requires regular and accurate population and fishing pressure estimates in order to be truly effective. It is a method that can work but I believe it is a waste of money and unnecessary at this time(and I will continue to believe so until I see evidence that a proper slot would not be effective).
Lakes close to the city like Pigeon can stay tags, in a way it would actually help the other lakes because many people like having close options even if they are just C&R but I think even they can get by on a slot limit(or even minimum size limit) and the hockey stick phenomenon isn't that serious as it can also be combated by occasional stocking from healthy genetic sources.
This just blows my mind. How could a slot limit possibly further restrict our ability to keep walleye? Our ability to keep walleye from all but a small handful of lakes is negligible at the moment to the point where I can count the number of walleye I have kept this year on one hand even though I have caught over 200 from a number of lakes. Our current regulations are extremely restrictive unless you live by or are willing to travel to lakes like Slave etc that still have open limits. Something I and many others aren't that willing to do for only 1 fish limits(which is another reason I believe a 1 fish slot limit would be effective).