Fellow Outdoorsmen Unite!

[Sundancefisher]

A petition has started to improve fishing in the Kananaskis Lakes.

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=77783

Please log on and sign. We have 20,000 members on this site. We need to show that with that kind of membership...we have the power to make some strong suggestions to the government!

There are currently 107 signatures. Let's get cracking. It is super fast and easy to sign up...just follow the link.

Link to the petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/dekkbeed/petition.html

Let's try and get to 5000 signatures by Jan 7th, 2011! Please pass on to your fellow fishing buddies!

Thanks

Sun

[leeaspell]

109 now

[FishingMOM]

110

[timsesink]

Make it 112

[duffy4]

"QUALITY FISHERIES"

I will have to look at the regulations for other stocked trout lakes in the area before I would sign this petition.

Dad, mom and the kids going out for a fun day of fishing and being able to catch and keep a few fish to eat is one view of "quality fishing". The opportunity to catch a really big stocked trout is another view.

I believe that in any area there has to be a proper mix of these two types of fisheries.

[vettedreamer]

116

[reelhooker]

119 and counting....

[Grizzly Adams]

. Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout can grow to a very large size (> 70 cm) and live to up to 11 years in the Kananaskis Lakes.

Where does this information come from? I've always thought of the Kananaskis Lakes as being basically sterile, other than stocked fish.

Grizz

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

. Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout can grow to a very large size (> 70 cm) and live to up to 11 years in the Kananaskis Lakes.

Where does this information come from? I've always thought of the Kananaskis Lakes as being basically sterile, other than stocked fish.

Grizz

They started off with a nice natural population of cutts. The information it seems you are referring to is from the many studies that have been conducted on these lakes. Rainbow age data shows they live to 11 years. I have personally caught 30 inch rainbows here. There is a small spawning population sustaining a few naturally reproduced rainbows. Spawning habitat is not ideal but proven to have some success. Maybe with a large spawning population that will improve.

Hopefully with power of the AOF members...we can make this into a fishery that rivals anything BC offers...and even rivals Bullshead.

[Sundancefisher]

I have had a number of PM's that state they love the new reg idea but since they don't fish there they don't feel they should vote.

To all of you I say...VOTE! If this fishery improves as much as Bullshead...then I doubt you will be able to stay away. You will fish it and you will get great value for your time in fishing in a beautiful location with a significantly higher chance of catching fish.

So by all means...don't delay!

Sign...sign...sign!

Cheers

Sun

[MattH]

148

[vcmm]

150

[summit151]

151

[Sundancefisher]

WOW

154 signatures... Keep it up folks and we can finally say we can function as a lobby group!

Sun

[Loki610]

156

[lucky_magic_stick]

Looks like #161 for us

[Okotokian]

Disagree with the petition. Trophy hunters should try less accessable lakes, or have regulations changed for those less accessable lakes. Why would you want to restrict fishing opportunities in those lakes that are heavily used and easily accessable? Let the campers and families and tourists have their crack at some fish there. It's like cutting back fishing opportunities and restricting fishing seasons to grow giants in the Glenmore reservoir. Just the wrong body of water to do it on.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Disagree with the petition. Trophy hunters should try less accessable lakes, or have regulations changed for those less accessable lakes. Why would you want to restrict fishing opportunities in those lakes that are heavily used and easily accessable? Let the campers and families and tourists have their crack at some fish there. It's like cutting back fishing opportunities and restricting fishing seasons to grow giants in the Glenmore reservoir. Just the wrong body of water to do it on.

x2 I don't think that the proposed change is in the best interests of the majority of Alberta anglers and non-residents visiting. Otherwise I'd support your petition 100%.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

x2 I don't think that the proposed change is in the best interests of the majority of Alberta anglers and non-residents visiting. Otherwise I'd support your petition 100%.

HunterDave and Okotokian

Your comment Dave "I don't think that the proposed change is in the best interests of the majority of Alberta anglers and non-residents visiting." is all fine except in stocked lakes they get fished hard and fast at the beginning and the stocked 12 inch rainbows get depleted fast. 94% of the stocked rainbows are gone each year. Therefore there are very few trout left for any successful fishing adventure later on in the season by any angler. If you truly believe this statement of yours then that is the principle reason why you are wrong SHOULD convince you to sign the petition. Then there will be ample trout for tourists and campers to catch...and when they catch one over 20 inches they can harvest if they so chose. As each year class grows through the system...they will become available for harvest...and you know they will get harvested. But in the meanwhile until they reach 20 inches they will be catchable and loads of fun for tourists, campers, grandpas, grandmas, sons and daughters etc.!

If the choice is between catching a bunch of smaller trout and 1 - 20 inch rainbow that is almost twice the weight of the current limit of stocked rainbows or catching nothing...what is there to decide. If most of the rainbows currently get harvested and there is nothing left to catch for food or fun...where is the value in that? Unfortunately we don't have a conveyor belt of stocked trout dropping into the lake to replace each trout as they are removed...that would be sweet but unfortunately there are significant costs and limitations to our stocking programs in Alberta that stop us from ever seeing that happen.

I am probably like you...I often like catching any sized fish...but after a while you do get bored of catching small fish over and over again. Just human nature. The majority of stocked lakes are small trout fisheries. In this proposed fishery...those smaller fish remain...but you have a chance at bigger fish. If you are not a particularly good fisherman...a lake like this will be way more forgiving. The smaller fish don't stay small forever...they grow and eventually achieve harvesting size on a regular basis. After a few years of initial start up and establishment of the new regulations...there will be a constant stream of keepers growing into harvesting range. Rather than hoping above all to catch something...anything in a lake that has been harvested all year like a vacuum...we can hope to catch some big ones amongst all the fun smaller ones. Very entertaining recreational sport fishing! Then the one you may want to keep is worth 5-6 small ones so even if you only catch one in every two outings...you are no worse off if you were one of the previous regular harvesters. Plus the likelihood of leaving skunked on a fishing outing...is significantly lessened.

As mentioned many different ways...you can't catch the small ones after the majority of them get harvested...so how is this any different from your perspective of a tourist, camper or local angler? With the harvest reduced to 1 from 3...but the sizes way up...your odds actually improve under this new plan.

Bullshead has found that guys with the same misconception as you were proven wrong and the meat guys are actually very happy with the same regulations on Bullshead. Catch and release guys are even happy. People travel from all around to fish that lake just because the fishing is WAY WAY better. Kananaskis Lakes right now is a mediocre fishery. Why fight fixing it?

I can see this regulation will work very well for you but unfortunately you have not seen it in action. Sometimes unknown change can be troubling.

Figure this however...if the petition works and for some very strange unexpected reason the new regulations are not a benefit after 5 years...you can always do a petition to change it right back. Nothing is every fixed in stone IMHO.

HunterDave and Okotokian

The trophy fishing argument by you both has been discussed in an earlier thread and addressed quite a few times. A 20 inch rainbow is not a trophy but about 5-6 times larger in weight than a 12 inch rainbow. The only reason more 20 inch fish are not caught is not because of a lack of natures ability to grow them but because we harvest them so quickly. As funds are not unlimited in F&W... stocking 12 inch rainbows and then pulling them out immediately is expensive freezer stocking. Letting mother nature grow them for free makes more sense.

I always find transferring hunting analogy to fishing difficult. You can't randomly shoot deer in a very limited population and then release them to grow bigger. Generally in hunting...the majority of hunters want to shoot the biggest and best that their tag will give them. While sometimes you are drawn for a doe in a small area and are happy with any meat...that same hunter realistically probably wants a buck twice as big if given an option.

This lake is providing similar ideology of providing the best bang for your buck...both in taxes and in time spent fishing.

If you could only hunt in October...but all the deer released from the deer hatchery were killed by July of that year...you would not be a happy hunter.

Now lets say that you could not shoot that deer until it was 4 years old...and it had grown to 5 times as big as when they were first stocked...and you had a fighting chance to find one...how is that bad? I call that recreationally sporting.

I guess your comment on another thread "But what about the people that don't care about the antler size and only want to put some meat in the freezer to eat?" Without this new regulation...chances are the opportunity to catch anything let alone meat on the table drops significantly as the stocked fish get depleted. This is not a stocked trout shooting gallery 24/7 all year long. This is currently a fishery of diminishing returns. I would rather go out at any time of the year and catch 20 trout and not see a 20 incher and then hit a stretch of catching a 20 incher than going out and seeing no fish at all...

Therefore to balance off the cost to stock, chance of successfully catching any fish, chance of catching something to eat...this regulation meets all the requirements of all interested parties. No one is selectively losing. Everyone is winning. This is a win/win scenario.

Link to the petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/dekkbeed/petition.html

186!!!

AWESOME!!!!!!

[sonny42]

Why not stock Lake trout, it is a native fish, should do well in K-Country.
I do not support the petition.

[jacob1202]

after reading all information supplied ...i dont support it either... trying to build a trophy fishery near your house especially in that country where families go to fish and camp isnt viable... growing up as a youngster the best part of fishing and your daily catch was also learning how to clean your fish and cook it if not it is the most important part... this area is highly recreational and used by families for such...it is a learning process that is passed down through the generations...being that it is such a high tourist location in bringing these changes you would shun such behaviour for the most part... there are many more out of the way lakes that this would be ideal in... dont make our provincially recognized lakes trophy only locations... who benefits from this??? the experienced anglers... 8/10 of people travelling to these destinations are not experienced anglers... and will not continue to come to these lakes if such changes are in place.... but maybe that is what some of us AO UNITED are pushing for??????

[trapshooter]

193 Almost 200!

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by jacob1202

after reading all information supplied ...i dont support it either... trying to build a trophy fishery near your house especially in that country where families go to fish and camp isnt viable... growing up as a youngster the best part of fishing and your daily catch was also learning how to clean your fish and cook it if not it is the most important part... this area is highly recreational and used by families for such...it is a learning process that is passed down through the generations...being that it is such a high tourist location in bringing these changes you would shun such behaviour for the most part... there are many more out of the way lakes that this would be ideal in... dont make our provincially recognized lakes trophy only locations... who benefits from this??? the experienced anglers... 8/10 of people travelling to these destinations are not experienced anglers... and will not continue to come to these lakes if such changes are in place.... but maybe that is what some of us AO UNITED are pushing for??????

You have not read the information.

This is not a trophy fishery. We are just allowing the trout to grow a couple of years. Trout growing to 20 inches in our lakes is easy. Why it does not happen is we severely limit our return on stocking investment by removing them before they grow. Once the cycle is started...yearly harvest is no less than the current status quo...and in fact...you get more fish to harvest.

Youngsters can't catch fish soon after stocking as they are all gone. These lakes have had poor fisheries in the past.

This is not a tourist fishing lake. These regulations would make it a tourist attraction as Albertans would be talking about these lakes being the best place to go like Bullshead.

While your arguments are hard to understand...the fact is fishing in these lakes fishing success will become easier. It will be easier to catch fish pure and simple. The fish will be more sporting insofar as more fish to catch from 12 to 19 inches and many fish to harvest at 20 inches plus. It will be the biggest draw around. People that never wanted to fish here in the past will want to fish here.

Rather than stocking 12 inch trout and harvesting them immediately...why not just go to a hatchery and collect your tax share? What is the difference. A 12 inch trout is neither sporting nor hard to catch right after stocking.

There are a number of people that flock to lakes like this and Mt Lorette ponds etc. immediately after stocking to fill their freezers. Then when you go to fish in July, August and Sept (sometimes within 2 weeks after stocking) while camping...there is nothing there. You would probably complain that not enough fish are stocked...but in the end for the cost involved it is not sustainable. You can let nature fatten the fish before harvest and let all users have fun and have fish to harvest.

Unfortunately for your argument...Bullshead proves this theory works for all users, people that want to eat fish and people that just want to catch fish.

I truly don't understand how to explain it any better. It has been said multiple different ways.

You will be a net benefactor of these changes... Explain to me why personally you feel you will not benefit rather than speculate on generalized tourists etc. I would love to discuss the facts rather than misinformation.

Thanks

Sun

[jacob1202]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

You have not read the information.

This is not a trophy fishery. We are just allowing the trout to grow a couple of years. Trout growing to 20 inches in our lakes is easy. Why it does not happen is we severely limit our return on stocking investment by removing them before they grow. Once the cycle is started...yearly harvest is no less than the current status quo...and in fact...you get more fish to harvest.

Youngsters can't catch fish soon after stocking as they are all gone. These lakes have had poor fisheries in the past.

This is not a tourist fishing lake. These regulations would make it a tourist attraction as Albertans would be talking about these lakes being the best place to go like Bullshead.

While your arguments are hard to understand...the fact is fishing in these lakes fishing success will become easier. It will be easier to catch fish pure and simple. The fish will be more sporting insofar as more fish to catch from 12 to 19 inches and many fish to harvest at 20 inches plus. It will be the biggest draw around. People that never wanted to fish here in the past will want to fish here.

Rather than stocking 12 inch trout and harvesting them immediately...why not just go to a hatchery and collect your tax share? What is the difference. A 12 inch trout is neither sporting nor hard to catch right after stocking.

There are a number of people that flock to lakes like this and Mt Lorette ponds etc. immediately after stocking to fill their freezers. Then when you go to fish in July, August and Sept (sometimes within 2 weeks after stocking) while camping...there is nothing there. You would probably complain that not enough fish are stocked...but in the end for the cost involved it is not sustainable. You can let nature fatten the fish before harvest and let all users have fun and have fish to harvest.

Unfortunately for your argument...Bullshead proves this theory works for all users, people that want to eat fish and people that just want to catch fish.

I truly don't understand how to explain it any better. It has been said multiple different ways.

You will be a net benefactor of these changes... Explain to me why personally you feel you will not benefit rather than speculate on generalized tourists etc. I would love to discuss the facts rather than misinformation.

Thanks

Sun

you make a definite valid point and i am going to read again... maybe i am not understanding the information provided

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by sonny42

Why not stock Lake trout, it is a native fish, should do well in K-Country.
I do not support the petition.

Good question. Lakers need specific habitat and food requirements. There is not a suitable food supply but the the main reason is that they would eat bull trout. They will also out compete bull trout for what small bait fish is available. I don't see them doing well on just the shrimp.

The rainbows and cutthroats have been proven here. Cutts are native and rainbows while introduced...have faired well.

Also when you talk about being native...being native to a particular lake or drainage does not mean they are suitable everywhere in the area. The lakers in Spray are small and stunted due to poor food availability. The rainbows in Kananaskis lakes can grow over 30 inches long. From a sporting perspective...there is no doubt you go with rainbows/cutts.

Hope that answers your question.

[cujo1969]

This is the same concept they use on pike let them get to 25' then they can be kept. Is this workin on the pike fishing?

[Steven Noel]

200

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by cujo1969

This is the same concept they use on pike let them get to 25' then they can be kept. Is this workin on the pike fishing?

I am not familiar with the lake location in question. Ultimately speaking...this will work for any species insofar as humans that harvest fish...with an increasing population...anything over the size limit gets harvested. Therefore the fish can at least attain the regulated length. In some cases like pike...this is probably a specific restriction to ensure some spawning success. Over harvest can endanger the population by crashing the numbers to the point harvest is no longer sustainable.

For Kananaskis Lakes...these are really purely stocked lakes so the regulation is to allow for some growth before harvest and allow retention of trout longer for recreational fishing value. Although some rainbow reproduction can occur...it is not significant to maintain a harvest and therefore cutthroat stocking is still required.

If these lakes were to be managed as a trophy lake for trout...the min length would be 30 inches...not the proposed 20 inches. Nobody has suggested 30 inches... Bullshead was a success at 20 inches...that is what is proposed here also.

As for pike...probably a trophy length would be 48 inches? 25 inches is a tiny hammer handle pike. Fun but not large. Unfortunately there is no direct analogy or comparison to be made between natural pike population regulations and stocked cutthroat trout populations.

202 signatures! Keep up the great work guys...get your friends and families on board ASAP!

[Sundancefisher]

Another point highlight.

In 2010, the catch rate in Upper Kananaskis Lake was 1.0 fish/hour -- over 7 times higher than it was in 1983 -- despite the fact that anglers are supposedly now hampered in catching fish by no longer being permitted to use bait. Furthermore, the average size of the fish caught in 1983 was much smaller than in 2010.

This is clearly evident by looking at the size distribution of the catches in the gillnetting poster in Post 40, which shows the size distribution of the rainbow trout gillnetted in 1983. Most of the rainbows caught in 1983 were very small, recently stocked fish measuring <20 cm (<8 inches). A couple of the main reasons for the low catch rate and small size of fish in 1983 were the liberal bag limit and absence of any size limit. Furthermore, although relatively few fish were released in 1983, those that were would have had a much lower survival rate than in 2010, owing to the fact that the hooking mortality rate for bait-caught fish is about 10 times higher than for fish caught on artificial lures.

The increase in the catch rate in 2010 likely reflects the combined effects of the 30-cm minimum size limit, reduced bag limit and higher catchability of cutthroat trout. Add to this the huge (20-fold) increase in the proportion of sport fish in the catch and the greatly reduced density of suckers in UKL, largely due to predation of suckers by bull trout, and one has to wonder how it is possible for some anglers to continue to claim that we "destroyed" the fishery in UKL when we stocked bull trout and implemented the bait ban, 30-cm minimum size limit and reduced bag limit. If they think that a higher catch rate for larger fish amounts to a "destroyed" fishery, then I guess that the proposed regulations will "devastate" it with even more fish to be caught and those that are keep are of an even greater size than ever before.

Essentially...look at the past data as an experiment proving what the future holds.

In the past...with liberal limits and not size restrictions...catch rates were low and sizes were tiny.

Then limits were reduced to 3 and size restrictions was 12 inches. Catch rates went up dramatically and the average retained size also increased.

Now look forward in time to a 1 fish limit but 20 inches. Now even more fish to catch and an even larger fish to retain. One twenty inch fish blows three 12 inch fish out of the water.

We are moving towards great fishing in UKL and LKL. I can hardly wait.

Sun

[jacob1202]

you have a point here... youve swayed my decision lol... consider me number 222