Quality Trout Fisheries in Alberta

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Chub, you have to realize what the number of pro "quality" fishery guys is in comparison to the number of Alberta anglers against it is. The majority of Alberta anglers don't want them and that's why SRD is only willing to give up dead lakes and new bodies of water. Make sense?

If you are only talking about coming to a compromise on this thread then who cares? Let's all agree that we should start a blue marlin fishery because we'd all like to have some good marlin fishing in Alberta. It just doesn't matter.......

The higher power will always decide how to manage our fisheries based on what the majority of Alberta anglers want. I think that what they have offered in the way of "quality" fisheries is a very good compromise however the "quality" guys won't be happy until they take a few lakes from the rest of Alberta anglers.

Misdirection and speculation special by Dave. You have no data to show the majority is on your side. Poll after poll on an ALBERTA outdoorsman forum comes back against your wishes time and time again...yet you cry that all the AOF members are conspiring against you. I guess you missed the big anti HunterDave Rally LOL. Bullshead was not a dead lake nor a new body of water Dave. Various factors come into play...creating new fisheries should always be a priority. If you could get a good marlin fishery...everyone would want it just like a quality fishery...so your example is kinda poor.

You keep shooting the baby elk and moose and let the kids and adults that like the sporting qualities of larger average size fish for the daddy fish. Then all your sporting concerns are covered. We can rename a lake Daveyboys tiddler trout and perch emporium and have at er!

As for higher powers...you don't need to fret then...cause them big boys in head office know what the most popular fisheries are in Alberta...

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Speckle55

Hunt i ask you if there was a chance .. and those lake all had fish that big so if a Judge ask me if there was a Chance that someone could catch a fish that big i would have to say yes.. end of post period....

Having say, 5 large fish in a lake that should have 500 large fish is a heck of a plan(lets not do anything about that). There was a large fish in there last week I think I will go catch it again. Cmon!

So I guess what you are saying is if we loaded up your lakes with fishermen and removed almost all of the large fish from your lakes for a 150 mile radius. You would not support regulation changes to reverse the quality of fishing in your area?
Put another way for ya. Your catching say a 23" fish every 3 days of fishing on your favorite lake. Now because of fisning pressure, It takes you 480 days to catch that 23" fish. What do you do? Go to another lake? What if all the lakes are like that? Do you change species, fish for walleye? Do you do NOTHING and just accept it? What the heck do you do??????????????????

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Having say, 5 large fish in a lake that should have 500 large fish is a heck of a plan(lets not do anything about that). There was a large fish in there last week I think I will go catch it again. Cmon!

So I guess what you are saying is if we loaded up your lakes with fishermen and removed almost all of the large fish from your lakes for a 150 mile radius. You would not support regulation changes to reverse the quality of fishing in your area?
Put another way for ya. Your catching say a 23" fish every 3 days of fishing on your favorite lake. Now because of fisning pressure, It takes you 480 days to catch that 23" fish. What do you do? Go to another lake? What if all the lakes are like that? Do you change species, fish for walleye? Do you do NOTHING and just accept it? What the heck do you do??????????????????

X2...maybe try posing the question differently so he understands.

Given the fishing pressure and regulations today...do those lakes have an excellent chance of rearing enough bigger trout that one can expect to catch at least one 25 incher every 5 days or so (excluding brood stock).

Specs...all he is saying is that you are taking a literal interpretation whereas he wants to know if there are fish now...present in these waters to catch...and if not...why and what can be changed to fix it. Saying was there ever at least one 25 inch trout in a lake over the past 80 years does nothing to prove your point. You have to justify your comments to the hear and now. Otherwise...if you use an example of when you used to take stringers home of 25 inch trout from a lake that no longer has them today...what can you learn and provide suggestions to the regulations or lakes to get them back to their former glory.

[Speckle55]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

Thank for clarifying your post(s) Speckle.

I disagree with the "pond" description for ANY of the lakes I listed. Lees Lake is probably the smallest and it is indeed a lake. Down the road is Burmis Pond (a pond). Michelle Reservoir is a Lake sized reservoir - definitely not a pond. Beauvais and Beaver Mines are definitely Lakes.Nicholas Sheran is the only body of water I have mentioned that could be considered a "Pond".

Where are you finding the lakes I mentioned described as "Ponds"? Something is wrong there...

As for your last comment, why would someone who catches a brood stock fish be any less of a fisherman then someone who fishes the stocked ponds? Or a trophy lake for that matter?

You asked about 4 or 5 lb trout, and I answered. Records from 1962 mean nothing to today's situation or discussion. In fact, it would re-enforce the argument that all of the lakes mentioned have the potential to produce large fish - a potential (which you yourself stated was most important in choosing any lake for "quality management") that they are currently NOT living up to!


I stated earlier that if temperatures and oxygen allow, ALL of our trout lakes (again, save for a few very cold alpine lakes) will grow BIG fish in a very short time, IF managed properly (i.e. stocked at a low rate and harvest is kept low, aerated if required). ALL. I repeat, to be clear, ALL.

Productivity is NOT an issue in Alberta's stillwaters - oxygen, temperature, stocking rates (both natural AND man made), types of fish stocked and harvest rates ARE the issues.

We are discussing the possibility of changing a couple of these; namely stocking rates and harvest regimes. The government is changing to triploid trout on their own, for reasons already described in others' posts.

Pudel those lakes listed... Terry said that they could have or did have or do have..some have had changes ie sucker etc.. so may not now ..others he said no they were ponds

ishootbambi post that he and son had taken trout that size.. Michelle

again i post if do like we have up here on Haridsty Creek Restoration so u have a chance at retention it will all help.. then you may not have to change any thing but the size you stock to get what you want as the Rainbow we stock now have a shelf life .. and yes Tripliods will have a longer shelf life therefore getting bigger as long as you don,t impead Natural Speicies

We spent 2million dollars on the Creek Restoration and had all Goverments(DOF) and countys /towns on board /schools /public/club

Check out www.Hintonfishandgame.ca then Club Projects

[Speckle55]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Having say, 5 large fish in a lake that should have 500 large fish is a heck of a plan(lets not do anything about that). There was a large fish in there last week I think I will go catch it again. Cmon!

So I guess what you are saying is if we loaded up your lakes with fishermen and removed almost all of the large fish from your lakes for a 150 mile radius. You would not support regulation changes to reverse the quality of fishing in your area?
Put another way for ya. Your catching say a 23" fish every 3 days of fishing on your favorite lake. Now because of fisning pressure, It takes you 480 days to catch that 23" fish. What do you do? Go to another lake? What if all the lakes are like that? Do you change species, fish for walleye? Do you do NOTHING and just accept it? What the heck do you do??????????????????

Do you realize that your local Bio has a ratio on productivity of a lake and what it can grow most lakes could not handle 500 large fish 25 inch plus but hey phone him/her.. science does have limits by Mother Nature
but you can make a Lake better changing from no trees to trees etc cleaning lake 57000 beer cans in lake leaching 4 car tires.3battries 2nuclear plants. 1dead Angler

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Speckle55

Pudel those lakes listed... Terry said that they could have or did have or do have..some have had changes ie sucker etc.. so may not now ..others he said no they were ponds

ishootbambi post that he and son had taken trout that size.. Michelle

again i post if do like we have up here on Haridsty Creek Restoration so u have a chance at retention it will all help.. then you may not have to change any thing but the size you stock to get what you want as the Rainbow we stock now have a shelf life .. and yes Tripliods will have a longer shelf life therefore getting bigger as long as you don,t impead Natural Speicies

We spent 2million dollars on the Creek Restoration and had all Goverments(DOF) and countys /towns on board /schools /public/club

Check out www.Hintonfishandgame.ca then Club Projects

Why so hung up on how good the fishing once was

If you do a historical search back 50 years in the Hinton area...was the fishing better once upon a time? Yes...the records show it was better. More fish and bigger fish. So what does that mean. Your fishing is bad now. I would therefore so a simple interpretation like you that the simple reason is your club has over fished the area. Shame...

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Speckle55

Do you realize that your local Bio has a ratio on productivity of a lake and what it can grow most lakes could not handle 500 large fish 25 inch plus but hey phone him/her.. science does have limits by Mother Nature
but you can make a Lake better changing from no trees to trees etc cleaning lake 57000 beer cans in lake leaching 4 car tires.3battries 2nuclear plants. 1dead Angler

LOL

500 - 25 inch fish...now where on Earth are you pulling those ideas from. 500 would be tons and the fishing would be silly at a lake. 200 in Lake Sundance to start with when stocked large they were easy...then after some catch and release "education" they have gotten smarter. 200 is a lot. 50 would mean we have a chance at catching one at random...or a better chance if we target for them. You don't need to go off on extremely...simple compromise and common sense works in fisheries management.

As for the rest of your post... All things being serious Specs...rather that hit send after typing...take a second and just read what you wrote. Correct some basic spelling and grammer and make sure it makes sense. Just making a simple sentence to prove your point will help greatly as 95% of your posts are usually impossible to decipher and probably people have stopped trying.

Keep posting by all means...just clean it up a bunch.

Cheers

Sun

[Speckle55]

If you look fishing in Obed Lake(earlier post 1962-2003) was better in the 1990s now died we think winter kill but thats just one lake

Edson... Millers Lake is better no reg change .. 3 Aerators added

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Speckle55

Hunt i ask you if there was a chance .. and those lake all had fish that big so if a Judge ask me if there was a Chance that someone could catch a fish that big i would have to say yes.. end of post period....

But you are assuming a judge would look at things as black and white as you, which they don't. The judge would ask... "what are the chances of catching a fish that big, in that lake, today?" And the answer is, not very good.

Then he would ask... "is the opportunity there to grow fish that big today?" And the answer is... because we've seen in the past what can be produced in this lake, yes. But due to over harvesting, regulation changes and proper management would be needed.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Speckle55

If you look fishing in Obed Lake(earlier post 1962-2003) was better in the 1990s now died we think winter kill but thats just one lake

Edson... Millers Lake is better no reg change .. 3 Aerators added

So, a quality enhancement made Miller's better Speck? Hmmm.... interesting.

[Speckle55]

Sun... Did you read Hunts post above my answer i think he mention 500.. you know most people can read what is meant as long as you are close(study proves that)

[Speckle55]

ghee Doc ..no reg changes

[Speckle55]

Btw ..TU and clubs,, local anglers,, Sundance and DOF were in favor .. SRD didn,t get involved much... Millers Lake

and are you saying Quality Lakes was involved?

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Speckle55

ghee Doc ..no reg changes

I guess not being next door to 1,000,000 people it didn't need it. But a quality enhancement just the same.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Speckle55

Btw ..TU and clubs,, local anglers,, Sundance and DOF were in favor .. SRD didn,t get involved much... Millers Lake

and are you saying Quality Lakes was involved?

I'm saying that Alberta anglers wanted better. And did something about it, why? So they could continue to catch the stockers every year?

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Doc

I'm saying that Alberta anglers wanted better. And did something about it, why? So they could continue to catch the stockers every year?

Speck?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Speckle55

Sun... Did you read Hunts post above my answer i think he mention 500.. you know most people can read what is meant as long as you are close(study proves that)

...but you are obviously taking the literal translation versus his point. You are saying 1 specific lake...may not support 500 big fish along with all the other size classes. That is where the adjustment to the stocking rates come into effect...but whatever.

He was saying more of a generic point that if there could be 500 fish...why be happy with 1 or 2 etc.

Let's make the most of the fishery rather than quoting a big fish caught 15 years or more ago.

IMHO

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Speckle55

Btw ..TU and clubs,, local anglers,, Sundance and DOF were in favor .. SRD didn,t get involved much... Millers Lake

and are you saying Quality Lakes was involved?

This kinda flies in the face of what Dave is telling us. According to Dave, these are the local's lakes, yet the locals were looking for more quality out of their fishing. They put not one but three aerators on Millers. That should get that lake through the winter pretty good making sure that the trout grow and live. They weren't happy with catching tiddlers until they died from lack of oxygen (like Chickakoo).

I wonder, if Millers suddenly received a ton of pressure and the trout remained small because of over harvest, would the locals just pull the aerators off and give up on the lake or would they maybe try and change the regs to keep it a decent trout fishery?

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by ishootbambi

in our family last season, robin had the biggest bullshead fish. it was a whisker over 25 inches and id estimate weight right at 6 pounds.

Speckle, this is the only post I could find from ISB regarding size of fish from any lake. He does not mention Michelle Reservoir from what I could find, unless it was mentioned before I answered your question (I do not have time to go back through 1000 posts).

So I stand by my assertion that Michelle is highly unlikely to have any fish in the 4-5lb mark. I would love to hear different though.

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by goldscud

Watched some amazing whitefish eating dries one fall on a small lake where I was hunting ducks. I should really go back there with the fly rod.

Take me! Take me!


I think Whitefish are a highly under-rated sportfish. Many a day has been saved on the trout stream by targeting whites.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by Doc

Speck?

X2

Sorry Speck, think "nose on face" and you will have a response.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

...but you are obviously taking the literal translation versus his point. You are saying 1 specific lake...may not support 500 big fish along with all the other size classes. That is where the adjustment to the stocking rates come into effect...but whatever.

He was saying more of a generic point that if there could be 500 fish...why be happy with 1 or 2 etc.

Let's make the most of the fishery rather than quoting a big fish caught 15 years or more ago.

IMHO

Thank you sundance. Exactly.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

So I guess what you are saying is if we loaded up your lakes with fishermen and removed almost all of the large fish from your lakes for a 150 mile radius. You would not support regulation changes to reverse the quality of fishing in your area?
Put another way for ya. Your catching say a 23" fish every 3 days of fishing on your favorite lake. Now because of fisning pressure, It takes you 480 days to catch that 23" fish. What do you do? Go to another lake? What if all the lakes are like that? Do you change species, fish for walleye? Do you do NOTHING and just accept it? What the heck do you do??????????????????

Spec please answer my questions!

Please answer the questions in this quote, all would be nice.

Or are you afraid to?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

You know, I do not have a problem with the 5 fish rule, but the size needs to change. How about 5 under 12"? That appears to be the vast majority of what is being caught in those lakes right now, so the kids can fish, the meat hunters can slaughter 5 a day, and a small but improved percentage of fish get to grow big - once they pass the 12" threshold.

What an absolutely novel idea! Some anglers already practice that...........without any regulations forcing them to do so. It's called CONSERVATION! Unfortunately, this goes against everything that "quality" anglers support......Leave the small trout and only take the big trout. There are also those that will say that ALL of the stocked trout are taken out within 2 weeks of putting them in the lake..............yeah, right, and I'm your Irish uncle Jimmy too! IMO the main reason reason for opposition to this idea is because it wouldn't make it easy enough to catch a big trout.

I'm all for it..............If you can't educate people to practice conservation then bring in regs to force it on them.

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Good point Goldscud. But what if you made the regs read 5 fish with a maximum size of 16". The fish that are left in the lake and make it past the legal keep size of +16" stay in the lake until they die of natural causes. Over time, there would be more and more big fish in the lake to catch.

The anglers, like me or people with kids, that like to go out and catch some smaller fish to keep and eat are happy and the trophy anglers that just want to catch a big fish to take a picture of should be happy. Everyone wins and no one has to give up anything!

The only people that I can see as not being happy are the anglers that want easy to catch and keep big fish. To them I say.....Too bad! If you want easy then join the Marines and if you want to eat big fish then go to the fish market! Smaller sized fish taste better anyway!

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Put another way for ya. Your catching say a 23" fish every 3 days of fishing on your favorite lake. Now because of fisning pressure, It takes you 480 days to catch that 23" fish. What do you do? Go to another lake? What if all the lakes are like that? Do you change species, fish for walleye? Do you do NOTHING and just accept it? What the heck do you do??????????????????

You can use any hypothetical scenario that you want. The fact remains that the lazy fishermen will not make the effort required to go to a lake holding big fish if they have to travel any distance to get to them. Those lakes will always have the biggest/most fish in them.

[huntsfurfish]

The ole pyramid of life



not totally accurate but here we go spec(ratios)
your area and ideally

25" -------------------------------------8
21" ----------------------------------8----8
15" --------------------------------8--------8
12" -----------------------------8-------------8
10" ---------------------------8-----------------8
8" ------------------------8-----------------------8 Sorry its a little lop sided.

our area not ideal at all
25"-------------------------------------8
21"-------------------------------------8
15"-------------------------------------8
12"----------------------------------8-----8
10"-----------------------------8----------------8
8"---------------------------8-----------------------8


And no its not the finger eitherlol

Can you see what Im getting at?

[huntsfurfish]

" quote by dave---What an absolutely novel idea! Some anglers already practice that...........without any regulations forcing them to do so. It's called CONSERVATION! Unfortunately, this goes against everything that "quality" anglers support......Leave the small trout and only take the big trout. There are also those that will say that ALL of the stocked trout are taken out within 2 weeks of putting them in the lake..............yeah, right, and I'm your Irish uncle Jimmy too! IMO the main reason reason for opposition to this idea is because it wouldn't make it easy enough to catch a big trout. "

yes dave,but you arent hereing either!

not enough make it!!!

These are trout dave not walleye!

Put and take dave might as well remove some larger fish dave. or see bottom point

If theres enough daves keeping the small ones they cant get bigger dave!

For something like that to work you would have to severely limit the small ones that you harvest dave.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

You can use any hypothetical scenario that you want. The fact remains that the lazy fishermen will not make the effort required to go to a lake holding big fish if they have to travel any distance to get to them. Those lakes will always have the biggest/most fish in them.

LMAO you really are funny.

[huntsfurfish]

were not going away dave

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

" quote by dave---What an absolutely novel idea! Some anglers already practice that...........without any regulations forcing them to do so. It's called CONSERVATION! Unfortunately, this goes against everything that "quality" anglers support......Leave the small trout and only take the big trout. There are also those that will say that ALL of the stocked trout are taken out within 2 weeks of putting them in the lake..............yeah, right, and I'm your Irish uncle Jimmy too! IMO the main reason reason for opposition to this idea is because it wouldn't make it easy enough to catch a big trout. "

yes dave,but you arent hereing either!

not enough make it!!!

These are trout dave not walleye!

Put and take dave might as well remove some larger fish dave.

If theres enough daves keeping the small ones they cant get bigger dave!

For something like that to work you would have to severely limit the small ones that you harvest dave.

I told ya.