Quality Trout Fisheries in Alberta

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

You two want a moment alone?

P.S. Resistance is futile

Step right up for a refreshing glass of "quality" fishery koolaid. One sip and you will be assimilated.

[Bigtoad]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Step right up for a refreshing glass of "quality" fishery koolaid. One sip and you will be assimilated.

Sorry, all I hear is a resounding gong....

[chubbdarter]

All i know reading this thread and then reading Grimes thread makes a guy wonder

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Speckle55

By the way next time you post tell me what chemical is thought to be the common factor to help with growth rates thanks

I've been researching ideas to present as an alternative to "quality" fisheries. Yesterday I was reading in the paper about an issue with genetically enhanced salmon that are hitting the shelves in our supermarket. Then I realized that it wasn't a viable option for trout in "quality" lakes.

The main concerns would be that there could not be any tributaries where these franken fish could escape from. That's easy enough, but by introducing them into the "quality" fisheries some fanatical "quality" fella might decide that it's best to have more of these fish available to make it better for everyone and start dumping them in with the real fish in real lakes.

Chemically enhanced fish might be a better option in that they can't pass on their genes to their off-spring. Maybe there's some sort of trout steroid that can be used. There would be no point in the bucket biologists to do that sort of thing because the genetics wouldn't matter. This option comes with it's own dangers though. Someone might mess up the dosages and the next thing that you know anglers in tubes start disappearing!

The third option that I thought about was force feeding the trout. You know like they do to the geese in France to get that foie de grasse stuff. This option probably wouldn't be acceptable to the general public as a whole but who says that they have to know anything about it.

So "quality" guys will any of those options work for ya, or is it not sporting to create something like that?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Bigtoad

Sorry, all I hear is a resounding gong....

Shake your head and tell me what you hear.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

I've been researching ideas to present as an alternative to "quality" fisheries. Yesterday I was reading in the paper about an issue with genetically enhanced salmon that are hitting the shelves in our supermarket. Then I realized that it wasn't a viable option for trout in "quality" lakes.

The main concerns would be that there could not be any tributaries where these franken fish could escape from. That's easy enough, but by introducing them into the "quality" fisheries some fanatical "quality" fella might decide that it's best to have more of these fish available to make it better for everyone and start dumping them in with the real fish in real lakes.

Chemically enhanced fish might be a better option in that they can't pass on their genes to their off-spring. Maybe there's some sort of trout steroid that can be used. There would be no point in the bucket biologists to do that sort of thing because the genetics wouldn't matter. This option comes with it's own dangers though. Someone might mess up the dosages and the next thing that you know anglers in tubes start disappearing!

The third option that I thought about was force feeding the trout. You know like they do to the geese in France to get that foie de grasse stuff. This option probably wouldn't be acceptable to the general public as a whole but who says that they have to know anything about it.

So "quality" guys will any of those options work for ya, or is it not sporting to create something like that?

All good options. Any other great ideas and input Dave?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

All good options. Any other great ideas and input Dave?

Well, actually now that you mention it..............

Ya gotta realize that I'm out of the "quality" fishery loop here. You guys might have already discussed the options in my post and dismissed them as not viable but how would I know about that.

I understand the situation, mission and execution but there is no contingency plan. The situation is that there aren't any big fish that are easy to catch......the mission is to create fisheries making it easier, and.............the execution is to take a bunch of P&T lakes and turn them into "quality" fisheries. Okay, I've got that.

All these folks that want "quality" fisheries obviously thought long and hard about it in order to develop a plan. And everyone knows that all well thought out plans have a contingency plan. Sooooo........what is the back-up plan if the first plan fails?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

All good options. Any other great ideas and input Dave?

I think that everyone knows by now that there really is no alternative to "quality" fisheries for you fellas. Too many ideas have been dismissed to suggest otherwise.

Noteworthy 500th post BTW.

[Bigtoad]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Well, actually now that you mention it..............

Ya gotta realize that I'm out of the "quality" fishery loop here. You guys might have already discussed the options in my post and dismissed them as not viable but how would I know about that.

I understand the situation, mission and execution but there is no contingency plan. The situation is that there aren't any big fish that are easy to catch......the mission is to create fisheries making it easier, and.............the execution is to take a bunch of P&T lakes and turn them into "quality" fisheries. Okay, I've got that.

All these folks that want "quality" fisheries obviously thought long and hard about it in order to develop a plan. And everyone knows that all well thought out plans have a contingency plan. Sooooo........what is the back-up plan if the first plan fails?

Sorry... just more annoying gonging. I believe it might even be a gong show.

[HunterDave]

And another thing................

Away back towards the beginning of the thread I suggested a slot limit where you could only keep fish up to a certain size. This would effectively force people into only keeping the eating sized fish and releasing the bigger fish. The people promoting "quality" lakes quickly dismissed that idea as not viable because all of the small stocked trout are taken out of the lake and don't have a chance of reaching the size that you couldn't keep.

Then, a little farther into the thread the "quality" fish fellas were complaining that the fish weren't growing to the trophy size of 30", however, in the majority of "quality" lakes the regs allow people to keep trout that reach the size of 20".

Now, I'm no rocket genealogist but it seems to me that if people are taking out all of the fish reaching the legal keep size of 20", then there will never be any 30" trout available to catch......ever. That seems simple enough for me to understand.

However, if the ultimate goal for these "quality" lakes is to create 30" trout then the only possible alternative is to make them ALL C&R lakes. Make sense? Perhaps that is stage 2 of the plan? Stage 1 is to get people to drink the "quality" kool-aid and once the foot is in the door...........turn them all into C&R lakes.

I'm sure that some people will quickly dismiss this as nonsense however they have no idea that they, themselves, are also being duped.

How is the trophy size of 30" trout achieved without making "quality" fisheries C&R? Something to think about.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by Bigtoad

Sorry... just more annoying gonging. I believe it might even be a gong show.

No no, your mistaken. Its the Dating Game. Dave is starring as the eligible bachelor, and, all 3 bachelorettes.

[HunterDave]

And THAT ladies and gentlemen is how you dissect a poorly thought out proposal, piece by piece.

Some may perceive that statement as gloating however I am not. Dismantling an argument that is based solely on "Cuz it'll make it better" is not particularly satisfying for me. There never really was anything else other than that.

For any young fellas out there that have been reading this thread..........If you truly believe that your beliefs are righteous, regardless of how many people ridicule, mock or try to dismiss you as a troll, have the intestinal fortitude to stick to your guns and maintain the strength of you convictions.

For everyone else that pm'd me, I hope that I kept you entertained and that you had as much fun reading this thread as I did posting on it.

With that, it's time to throw this little fish back in.

[huntsfurfish]

hunterdave

Ill keep it simple for ya.

Its all about increasing the average size! now 10"-12"

proposing(quality), 18"-20"

Hope that helps and is easy enough for everyone to understand.

could even make that range larger say 16-20"

And the anglers wishing to eat their catch can/could keep 1 to eat still.

[packhuntr]

WOW. Dave your awesome. You know, guys are bringing these things up because they are important issues.

[Bigtoad]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

And another thing................

Away back towards the beginning of the thread I suggested a slot limit where you could only keep fish up to a certain size. This would effectively force people into only keeping the eating sized fish and releasing the bigger fish. The people promoting "quality" lakes quickly dismissed that idea as not viable because all of the small stocked trout are taken out of the lake and don't have a chance of reaching the size that you couldn't keep.

Then, a little farther into the thread the "quality" fish fellas were complaining that the fish weren't growing to the trophy size of 30", however, in the majority of "quality" lakes the regs allow people to keep trout that reach the size of 20".

Not true Dave. I said WAY back near the beginning that I voted C&R but I really liked the one under 18" proposal, which would be similar to a slot size. I like both C&R and one under 18" more than I like one over 18" but, unlike you, I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don't think one over 18" will get us as big of fish as the other options (which is reflected in the average size of the fish I suggested in the questions of this poll).

However, and it's a big freaking "however", I think that all of these suggestions (even a slot size Dave!) are a much better option than keeping 5 on MANY more of our lakes, not only for an overall larger size of fish, but also for the future sustainability of stocked trout fishing in Alberta.

One over 18" is not my first choice, but it's a hell of a lot better than everyone keeping 5 of any size. With one over 18", SRD doesn't need to stock nearly as many fish in a lake because not nearly as many are taken. With less stocked fish, there will be more food available to allow these fish to grow bigger faster. There will still be a few big boys that get bonked, but I think many people, if they experience a great fishery, will respect it more than a put and take, and release more of the truly large fish (which I know is what both you and I would do).

Now, I'm no rocket genealogist but it seems to me that if people are taking out all of the fish reaching the legal keep size of 20", then there will never be any 30" trout available to catch......ever. That seems simple enough for me to understand.

Perhaps you should try being a rock gynecologist?

You've got it wrong Dave. There may be less 30" fish in a keep one over 20" than a keep one under 20", or a total C&R but with limited harvest, some fish will get bigger. However, when you allow 5 fish of any size, you are exponentially decreasing your odds of EVER seeing a fish even close to that size!

However, if the ultimate goal for these "quality" lakes is to create 30" trout then the only possible alternative is to make them ALL C&R lakes. Make sense? Perhaps that is stage 2 of the plan? Stage 1 is to get people to drink the "quality" kool-aid and once the foot is in the door...........turn them all into C&R lakes.

I'm sure that some people will quickly dismiss this as nonsense however they have no idea that they, themselves, are also being duped.

How is the trophy size of 30" trout achieved without making "quality" fisheries C&R? Something to think about.

Again Dave, you seem to really be jumping to a lot of doomsday conclusions. I don't think anyone is suggesting ALL lakes be C&R, but we would like more to be, please. If stocked correctly, and if good lakes are chosen, then big fish should result. One under 18" or 20" is another alternative at some lakes, as long as fishing pressure doesn't allow any to hit the "magic" size. One over 18" still drastically reduces harvest and significantly increases the chance of fish to get big. And as I mentioned above, I think there would be a different mentality when going to a lake with delayed harvest regs. Many fishermen would release the big ones and the ones that wouldn't, probably wouldn't catch the big ones to begin with. Or they would go to Strubel and happily bonk their five 10" fish.

We just want more lakes to be created this way, whether that is taking some lakes that currently have 5 fish limits that could potentially create big fish (ie. Swan near Valleyview) and reducing the limits there, or stocking new lakes that were previously dead (like Fiesta). I think a mixture of both would be good.

We need more of them in Alberta. We can argue about where they should be and what the regs should be and a thousand other things, but the fact is, we need more of them and we need them to be managed better than they currently are.

If you can't understand that Dave, then both Sense, and Reason have officially "left the building." And it's very difficult to have a discussion with someone who is lacking both.

Cheers.

[HunterDave]

Toad, you guys keep referring to the lakes in Parkland as being the model for what you envision our lakes in Alberta to be like. So, let's have a look at what they are doing there that we are not doing here. First the regs for Alberta "quality" lakes that are not C&R, let's take Muir Lake as and example for the sake of argument:

"anglers they can only keep one fish over 50 cm per day"

Now let's compare that to the non C&R Parkland Lakes in Manitoba:

"The FLIPPR lakes are regulated to maintain a population of large fish, since all fish over 45 cm (18 inches) must be released."

There's where you fellas should be starting IMO and not talking about creating a bunch more "quality" fisheries.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by packhuntr

WOW. Dave your awesome. You know, guys are bringing these things up because they are important issues.

Pack, this was never about my own awesomeness for me. I've choked down allot of chit in order to keep this thread open. Indeed I understand that this is an important issue and that is why I have participated in the debate for so long. I am just as passionate in protecting the fisheries that I have now as people are for changing them.

I fully understand that this issue may be more significant to people in different regions than where I am but when I hear people from here saying that there is no good fishing here and that they want to change 30% of the lakes in the area that I fish to "quality" fisheries that is simply something that I will not accept.

[Heron]

You have the power to declare yourself winner? Look at the statistics on what is primarily a hunting board. Please put up another survey worded you way you want and we will see what happens.

You remind me of my father. He would argue the other side against logic just for the enjoyment of the discussion. I hope logic prevails.

[Bigtoad]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Toad, you guys keep referring to the lakes in Parkland as being the model for what you envision our lakes in Alberta to be like. So, let's have a look at what they are doing there that we are not doing here. First the regs for Alberta "quality" lakes that are not C&R, let's take Muir Lake as and example for the sake of argument:

"anglers they can only keep one fish over 50 cm per day"

Now let's compare that to the non C&R Parkland Lakes in Manitoba:

"The FLIPPR lakes are regulated to maintain a population of large fish, since all fish over 45 cm (18 inches) must be released."

There's where you fellas should be starting IMO and not talking about creating a bunch more "quality" fisheries.

Did you read ANYTHING I just wrote or did you just start banging away at the gong again?

I'm not disagreeing with you that I like the "all fish over 18" should be released" regulation that FLIPPR has. Seems to really work and I think it should be the model here for quality fisheries. HOWEVER, I'll take ANY measure to improve quality at this point. Total C&R, one over 18", slot limit, whatever! Heck, I'd be all for changing ALL 5 fish limits to 3 if I had to! All of these are better than what we currently have which is just the sound of bonking resonating across the water. Any of these regulations are a step in the right direction which is at least a start. I'm all for whatever would create better fishing here in Alberta, even if it means I have to agree with you once in a while. The difference between us however, is that I see merit in these regs even though they might not be what I personally would prefer. You can't have it exactly your way so you don't want any change. Bullheaded and arrogant if you ask me... but you wouldn't, cause you're bullheaded and arrogant.

Cheers.

[Speckle55]

Now Now Boys .. if you agree that 10% of anglers catch 90% of the fish its doesnt matter what lake you put the angler

[Christofficer]

Wow, reading some of the dross on here...... damn. I'm not getting into the middle of it, but I'd rather be able to catch fish 25" and up and keep alot less fish than what the regs are at most ES1 watersheds. It's common sense to see that the regs are too lax on some what-used-to-be good fisheries.

[Bigtoad]

Originally Posted by Christofficer

Wow, reading some of the dross on here...... damn. I'm not getting into the middle of it, but I'd rather be able to catch fish 25" and up and keep alot less fish than what the regs are at most ES1 watersheds. It's common sense to see that the regs are too lax on some what-used-to-be good fisheries.

I think you may have just gotten into the middle of it

Welcome Christofficer to the discussion and welcome also your common sense and reason. There is such little of it floating around...

[gl2]

looks like people have lots of common sense, or you guys would already have your so called quality fisheries.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Pack, this was never about my own awesomeness for me. I've choked down allot of chit in order to keep this thread open. Indeed I understand that this is an important issue and that is why I have participated in the debate for so long. I am just as passionate in protecting the fisheries that I have now as people are for changing them.

Wow, what a hero. Give me a break!!!

It's funny how in the end you talk about looking at FLIPPR as a starting point and some pages back you are dismissing it and making uninformed posts about fees. So are you for or against any lakes with different management approaches (e.g. put and take of "x" number any size in one lake, and, another lake with 1 over a certain size of slot size)?

A simple yes or no would be nice for change without a lot of redirect, mentions of elitism, quality this and quality that or whatever else your manic mind comes up with. Really not helping any credibilty you think in you mind you might have.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Bigtoad

Did you read ANYTHING I just wrote or did you just start banging away at the gong again?

I'm not disagreeing with you that I like the "all fish over 18" should be released" regulation that FLIPPR has. Seems to really work and I think it should be the model here for quality fisheries. HOWEVER, I'll take ANY measure to improve quality at this point. Total C&R, one over 18", slot limit, whatever! Heck, I'd be all for changing ALL 5 fish limits to 3 if I had to! All of these are better than what we currently have which is just the sound of bonking resonating across the water. Any of these regulations are a step in the right direction which is at least a start. I'm all for whatever would create better fishing here in Alberta, even if it means I have to agree with you once in a while. The difference between us however, is that I see merit in these regs even though they might not be what I personally would prefer. You can't have it exactly your way so you don't want any change. Bullheaded and arrogant if you ask me... but you wouldn't, cause you're bullheaded and arrogant.

Cheers.

Actually, I didn't read what you posted but I have found time to do it now.

So I think that I understand your position in all of this now..........kinda.......I think.

When you say things like; "A better fishery with more quality lakes is a win, win, win, win, win situation." and "My point, and the point of several other posters here is that there are very few lakes managed as quality lakes and hundreds that are put and take. I believe the there is a huge discrepancy between the percentage of people that want quality fisheries and the percentage of quality fisheries that we have." you are not really endorsing the creation of more quality lakes, you are endorsing..............that other stuff that you said.

My position is somewhat more clear. I do not support "quality" fisheries simply to satisfy a minority of anglers that want to make it easier (better) for themselves to catch bigger fish at the expense of the majority of anglers that fish simply for the pure enjoyment of fishing.

[savage7mm]

You know i am quite appy with my 12 inch,


trout that i catch. Good little pan fryers hahah

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Bigtoad

I think you may have just gotten into the middle of it

Welcome Christofficer to the discussion and welcome also your common sense and reason. There is such little of it floating around...

If you agree with what he's saying then it's common sense and reasoning otherwise, it's

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by savage7mm

You know i am quite appy with my 12 inch,


trout that i catch. Good little pan fryers hahah

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Wow, what a hero. Give me a break!!!

It's funny how in the end you talk about looking at FLIPPR as a starting point and some pages back you are dismissing it and making uninformed posts about fees. So are you for or against any lakes with different management approaches (e.g. put and take of "x" number any size in one lake, and, another lake with 1 over a certain size of slot size)?

A simple yes or no would be nice for change without a lot of redirect, mentions of elitism, quality this and quality that or whatever else your manic mind comes up with. Really not helping any credibilty you think in you mind you might have.

Well, at least you're consistent there.......SNAPPY!

My post comparing the regulations at FLIPPR lakes to the regulations at Alberta's "quality" lakes was to demonstrate the complete nonsensical thinking that is behind the creation of them and why they are not producing the trophy sized fish that people are complaining aren't there. You can point fingers at SRD for putting too many fish in or whatever. But the fact is, they are designed to grow fish to the legal length of 20" and be taken out. It's not rocket dentistry IMO? And these are what you fellas want to create more of?

I am totally against anything remotely similar to what Alberta's "quality" lakes are. I also do not support the creation of more C&R lakes simply to grow bigger fish. I also do not support anyone going out to rural areas and railroading either of those things on people that live there.

I would support the creation of more "quality" and C&R lakes in dead lakes and new bodies of water to a degree if the money was available to stock them. I would support the current "quality" lakes more if the regs were changed to something similar to FLIPPR but I would not support creating more of them by taking P&T lakes away from other anglers. I would support different management approaches as is needed for different lakes as required (ie collapse, etc) but not just to grow fish bigger. And, I don't think that ending all of your posts with something like, "Really not helping any credibilty you think in you mind you might have." makes you sound any smarter.

Did I miss anything?

[goldscud]

I hope next time some guys leave "the city" to go fishing that they bring extra stuff to suck up to the "rural" guys who apparently own and control all the lakes in Alberta. So much for sharing the resource. Maybe we should do an informal survey at Bullshead and Police Outpost this summer to make sure there is no rural guys there that are lost and confused wanting to catch to some bigger than average fish. Its quite interesting to find that everyone's so happy with the status quo and then you see the overflowing parking lots at Bullshead and Beaver, and the trail of tail lights heading to BC....