Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak
What you say would make sense but only if you truly believe there was reason to worry about these lakes crashing? From what I have seen and heard that is not the case at least in a few of the waterbodies.
Case in point netting data for Eagle Lake the year before it was closed.
http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/...eport-2015.pdf
I see a healthy population of walleye with multiple younger age classes below the 50 cm limit that was current at the time as well as a few fish over it. I also see a pike population that is perhaps a little low for numbers(likely in part due to large population of small walleye) but has a good distribution of size and a decent number of small pike(which I find is often understated on these reports I believe due to the fact that small pike are usually hiding in the middle of the weed beds versus where they set these nets to try and catch walleye). I see a lake that is on par with many others across the province that see far less fishing pressure and in no way do I see anything that makes me think it had to be closed to retention.
Sure the lake doesn't quite meet representative lakes with sustainable harvest for both walleye and pike but if you review the netting data as much as I do you would realize they are unrealistic. Maybe possible for a lake to meet one or the other but very rarely ever both. Nor would I ever expect a lake like Eagle in such close proximity to a major city center to meet such idealised values.
That is just one example though.
We also have unwarranted river closures being proposed. Lakes closed prematurely due to worries about winter kill such as Cross Lake(which remains closed even though reports are of healthy populations, another lake which I forgot the name of was similarly just closed and quickly reopened though). Lakes with large walleye populations and no limit(Bellevue was a good example that they finally reopened albeit only for tags after large outcry and finally some netting data).
The examples are many and the reasons are often unsubstantiated. Similar to what you said I don't have to convert you. What I hope to do is open the eyes of other anglers to realize that AEP does not act on behalf of fishermen. They have a number of environmental and biological requirements that come first in their job and that is why they are more then happy to close waterbodies or set zero limits since it makes their job easier... There are often ways of reaching their goals(at least potential ways) that can be first attempted but we as anglers need to stand up(when necessary) and hold them accountable in order for them to try all these other avenues first. |
We are talking walleye here. Doesnt matter what I think. And it doesnt matter what you think either.
If AEP isnt comfortable with numbers they will error on the side of caution and shut the lake down. Remember 9 years is a long time. If those lakes are currently 3 fish, doesnt matter, it will go to zero.
I have probably read the same studies as you and then some over the course of time not that matters much. Just saying.