Quality Trout Fisheries in Alberta

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

I think that allot of people are concerned about the natural species as well but I've never heard of someone wanting a "quality" fishery created for pike. Maybe that's the next thing that'll come up? However, it appears to me that pike and the likes are not considered as sexy as trout.

Have you ever heard of Seibert lake, ex-trophy lake, currently 1 pike over 100 cm. Seibert is to Pike what Muir is to Trout.

Once again you show your ignorance knows no bounds.

If you keep your mouth shut you will never put your foot in it. ~Austin O'Malley

[DuckBrat]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

Is it just me or does anyone else find the irony in this discussion? A few of you guys are getting your panties in a bunch about a non-sustaining population of introduced fish in to many "lakes" that are not natural and have no natural fish populations. If F&W did not stock these lakes there would be no fishing what so ever.

Sorry but I personally think more time, effort and study should be put in to saving our stocks of naturally occurring fish like pike, walleye, whites, perch, burbot, bull trout, browns, brookies etc...

Only one problem, Browns and Brookies are not Native to Alberta but I do agree with protecting Natural stocks as well as creating quality fisheries including the stocked ponds.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Just take a look at the Muir Lake "quality" fishery experiment. The rocket chemists got together and decided to create a "quality" lake there because SRD would let them have it and not because it was the right lake to do it in. It was a dead lake anyway and not worth stocking it so why not? It's an 80 acre slew that they are now trying to grow trophy sized fish in. Now I'm no fish doctor but I can pretty much figure out that it'll take more than a couple of aerators in a slew to keep any amount of reasonable sized fish alive in there let alone a large number of big ones.

Now that Muir Lake has failed to live up to expectations, the people that supported creating it in the first place are all pointing fingers to place the blame on why it didn't work. It's SRD fault for putting too many stocked fish in there, yada, yada, yada. We all know what the reality is though.....HEELLLOOO!

Muir Lake likely won't be shut down because it was a dead lake in the first place but there is currently a resolution to close down the "quality" fishery at Police Lake. Pro "quality" fishery fellas even openly admit that they don't consider 15 of the 17 "quality" trout fisheries in Alberta "quality" fisheries! So what's the solution they say......create more "quality" lakes.

For a guy that knows absolutely nothing about what went into this project, you sure got a lot to say about it.

Let's see if you can answer the question this time. How has Muir failed to live up to expectations?

If you answer with any of that crap you wrote before... WRONG!

I said Muir doesn't live up to my expectations. I was brought up with the values that if you do something, you do it right the first time. My beef is with SRD not following up and giving anglers a chance at a true trophy. Other than that, Muir is a success. It offers the tiddlers for the Daves' of this world that like to catch easy little fish, it offers some average size fish and it offers challenging big fish. Just because the big fish are there, doesn't make them easy to catch. Guys aren't pulling out 24 inch trout every time they fish the lake. Just the fact we know they're there and there is a decent chance at catching one is what keeps us going back.

For your information, Muir was a quality fishery in the 60's and 70's but SRD decided to stop stocking it because it started to winterkill almost every year (much like chickakoo). Placing aerators on the lake has solved that problem.

So, it'll take more than a couple aerators to grow reasonable size fish? It already is so... WRONG! But it will take more than aerators to grow some true trophies. Like studying the lake and stocking it accordingly for one thing.

One more time, how is Muir A failure?

HELLOOOO?

[Doc]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

As far as stereotyping that it's city fellas that want these "quality" fisheries, it's not stereotyping if that's who wants more "quality" fisheries. Just have a look at who's been posting on this thread. You don't hear all of the good ol boys up in Whitecourt pushing to get MacLeod lake changed into a "quality" fishery do you?

No but what about the good 'ol boys in the RMH area pushing for it?

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Making it easier to catch big fish is what it is and no matter how you sugar coat it you can't change the bottom line. You can replace the word " bigger", "easier", "more" with "quality" but it won't change the fact that "quality" fisheries are all about making it easier to catch bigger fish.

Wrong again. It's all about knowing there are a decent amount of bigger fish in the lake so we're not wasting our time with the tiddlers you love so much.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Doc

For a guy that knows absolutely nothing about what went into this project, you sure got a lot to say about it.

Let's see if you can answer the question this time. How has Muir failed to live up to expectations?

If you answer with any of that crap you wrote before... WRONG!

I said Muir doesn't live up to my expectations. I was brought up with the values that if you do something, you do it right the first time. My beef is with SRD not following up and giving anglers a chance at a true trophy. Other than that, Muir is a success. It offers the tiddlers for the Daves' of this world that like to catch easy little fish, it offers some average size fish and it offers challenging big fish. Just because the big fish are there, doesn't make them easy to catch. Guys aren't pulling out 24 inch trout every time they fish the lake. Just the fact we know they're there and there is a decent chance at catching one is what keeps us going back.

For your information, Muir was a quality fishery in the 60's and 70's but SRD decided to stop stocking it because it started to winterkill almost every year (much like chickakoo). Placing aerators on the lake has solved that problem.

So, it'll take more than a couple aerators to grow reasonable size fish? It already is so... WRONG! But it will take more than aerators to grow some true trophies. Like studying the lake and stocking it accordingly for one thing.

One more time, how is Muir A failure?

HELLOOOO?

X2

Well said Doc.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Doc

For your information, Muir was a quality fishery in the 60's and 70's but SRD decided to stop stocking it because it started to winterkill almost every year (much like chickakoo). Placing aerators on the lake has solved that problem.

So, it'll take more than a couple aerators to grow reasonable size fish? It already is so... WRONG! But it will take more than aerators to grow some true trophies. Like studying the lake and stocking it accordingly for one thing.

One more time, how is Muir A failure?

HELLOOOO?

Yeah, and there were alligaters in it when the dinosaurs roamed the earth too. It was a dead lake that SRD had written off and that's why it was handed over to people to experiment with. I have no problem with that. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the money doesn't come out of the coffers that pay for the stocking of the existing lakes, you can turn as many slews into quality fisheries as you want. As long as you don't try to touch any of the existing stocked lakes it's all good.

Other non-quality lakes are growing the same sized fish as what's in Muir without the restrictions and aerators so how can anyone say that it's a success? You said it yourself, it'll take more than aerators to grow trophies in there. The aerators might be keeping them alive, for now, but it's the restrictions that keep them in the lake. If you think that you can maintain a large number of fish up to and including 30" in there then I wish you luck with that.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Have you ever heard of Seibert lake, ex-trophy lake, currently 1 pike over 100 cm. Seibert is to Pike what Muir is to Trout.

Once again you show your ignorance knows no bounds.

Yeah, well if pike are as sexy as trout as you are suggesting, then how come people aren't trying to turn 30% of our lakes into "quality" pike fisheries? There are currently 17 "quality" trout fisheries and some people still want more. Why aren't they fighting to get "quality" pike fisheries instead?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Doc

No but what about the good 'ol boys in the RMH area pushing for it?

Wrong again. It's all about knowing there are a decent amount of bigger fish in the lake so we're not wasting our time with the tiddlers you love so much.

I don't know anything about the fellas down in RMH but I'll betcha that they wont railroad any "quality" trout fisheries through without any opposition down that way either.

EXACTLY! You don't want to waste your time with the tiddlers. You only want to catch big fish.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Just to finish off your argument about easier to catch big fish, that is one of the reasons why I go to Muir. There you go, what a revelation....
As I posted earlier I'm not sure why you keep harping on that but whatever...
I like having the choice of C&Ring bigger fish at Muir but then trying something different for the pan somewhere else on another day. You also seem to just ignore the fact that most that go to Muir are looking for that elusive HUGE trout. Same challenge or enjoyment as you get catching that HUGE trout for the lakes you go to. Seems like the same experience...

Ya see, now that's what I've been saying all along and everyone kept telling me that it wasn't about making it easier to catch big fish. HALLALUJA.....and the truth shall set you free brother! It only took 11 or so pages to finally get someone to admit to that one little fact. Now I wonder why people would not want to admit that creating "quality" trout fisheries was about making it easier to catch big fish?

Just a theory but..........perhaps they feel that if they did admit it then it would be admitting that they were lazy anglers that felt that fishing anywhere else was too challenging for them.

I hope that you're proud of what you've done SNAP!

Same challenge! How can you compare the challenge of catching a big fish in a regularly stocked lake to the challenge of catching a big fish at a fish farm? No, it doesn't seem like the same experience to me at all!

[Heron]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Ya see, now that's what I've been saying all along and everyone kept telling me that it wasn't about making it easier to catch big fish. HALLALUJA.....and the truth shall set you free brother! It only took 11 or so pages to finally get someone to admit to that one little fact. Now I wonder why people would not want to admit that creating "quality" trout fisheries was about making it easier to catch big fish?

Just a theory but..........perhaps they feel that if they did admit it then it would be admitting that they were lazy anglers that felt that fishing anywhere else was too challenging for them.

I guess I'll have to come clean here. Put me on the list of the defeated people who want to have a better chance to catch larger fish without having to drive a riduiculous distance past 6 lakes that could be decent fishing spots. I feel like a great weight has been lifted from my shoulders.

I think at the root some of the resentment around here is the perception that all of us on the side of delayed harvest are elitest snobby fly fisherman who just want a photo opportunity with that trophy while sporting thousands of dollars of gear. Take me off that list please. I and my children will fish anywhere for anything that swims. I work and have young children in various activities so my fishing time is limited right now. When my life brings me to visit my mother in Consort I take my children to the what use to be a settling pond to catch a few trout. Because my wife and I keep our trailer at Wabamun we fish for pike because it is handy. I know from personal experience and watching the pike threads that Wabamun is fishing fantastic now. Wonder why? No harvest. When I am obligated to meet friends at Pigeon for the weekend we go walleye fishing. None of these are my first choice but I fish where I can when I can.

Oh put my kids on the defeated list too. They would sooner catch larger fish closer to home as well.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Ya see, now that's what I've been saying all along and everyone kept telling me that it wasn't about making it easier to catch big fish. HALLALUJA.....and the truth shall set you free brother! It only took 11 or so pages to finally get someone to admit to that one little fact. Now I wonder why people would not want to admit that creating "quality" trout fisheries was about making it easier to catch big fish?

Just a theory but..........perhaps they feel that if they did admit it then it would be admitting that they were lazy anglers that felt that fishing anywhere else was too challenging for them.

I hope that you're proud of what you've done SNAP!

Same challenge! How can you compare the challenge of catching a big fish in a regularly stocked lake to the challenge of catching a big fish at a fish farm? No, it doesn't seem like the same experience to me at all!

LOL...Good try again at misdirection Davey boy.

You see...you like catching 9-12 inchers with a hope of a monster 16 incher.
We want to catch 16-20 inchers with a hope of a monster 25 incher. Our odds are hopefully better at catching a 25 incher than you catching a 16 incher...but easy...probably not...challenging yes...

It has been said before on other posts before...you just ain't reading apparently...just trolling by the sounds of it now.

That shows you lost. Sorry dude.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Yeah, and there were alligaters in it when the dinosaurs roamed the earth too. It was a dead lake that SRD had written off and that's why it was handed over to people to experiment with. I have no problem with that.

Great...being that all lakes with rainbows in them were once dead lakes with prehistoric alligators swimming in it and with no fish when settlers arrived then we think it is great you now agree that all lakes can be "experimented" with.

Thanks for that.

Sun

[Doc]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Yeah, and there were alligaters in it when the dinosaurs roamed the earth too. It was a dead lake that SRD had written off and that's why it was handed over to people to experiment with. I have no problem with that. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the money doesn't come out of the coffers that pay for the stocking of the existing lakes, you can turn as many slews into quality fisheries as you want. As long as you don't try to touch any of the existing stocked lakes it's all good.

I guess you are trying to make a point with the Alligators? Not really sure what it is... but.

A dead lake meaning what, no life in the lake, no existing sport fish, what does 'dead' mean?

Just where do you think the trout came from? Do you think we paid for it? That's exactly where it came from. We raised money and donated our time to dig and run the electrical, to buy and install the aerators, to purchase and install the signs, etc... SRD stocks the trout.

So to get this straight, any body of water that is currently not stocked is a slew? I'm sure you meant slough? And every body of water that is stocked but not a "quality" fishery is a lake?

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Other non-quality lakes are growing the same sized fish as what's in Muir without the restrictions and aerators so how can anyone say that it's a success? You said it yourself, it'll take more than aerators to grow trophies in there. The aerators might be keeping them alive, for now, but it's the restrictions that keep them in the lake. If you think that you can maintain a large number of fish up to and including 30" in there then I wish you luck with that.

Really? Name me one, just one trout lake within one hour from Edmonton that produces the sizes and catch rates that Muir does. Muir is minutes from millions of people, not hours and yet it offers up better fishing than the lakes you're driving so far to reach.

As far as trophies, to a kid 10 yrs old a trophy might be 18 inches. They might catch trophies all day at Muir. To someone else a trophy might be any fish over 20 inches (50cm) then they have that opportunity as well. To me a "true" trophy is a trout over 10lbs, we haven't got there yet (or maybe we have?) but just knowing there is a good chance at a trout up to 25" is why Muir is so popular.

So how does one determine the success of a lake? Simple, are anglers using the fishery? When you can't find a parking spot and the boat launch has a line up, I'd say it's a success. Show me another trout fishery within two hours of Edmonton that sees that. Why do we need more quality fisheries? To spread that success around.

As far as the 30" trout, that's up to SRD. Again, managing a lake so it's the best it can be is the next step in quality fisheries.

So Dave, you still haven't explained how Muir is not a success. It's ok though, you haven't because you can't.

[DuckBrat]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Yeah, well if pike are as sexy as trout as you are suggesting, then how come people aren't trying to turn 30% of our lakes into "quality" pike fisheries? There are currently 17 "quality" trout fisheries and some people still want more. Why aren't they fighting to get "quality" pike fisheries instead?

Just because it hasn't been mentioned in this thread don't think it hasn't happened. There are a number of people who have posted here including myself that have shown initiative to better fishing as whole in the province. Whether it be Pike, Perch, Burbot, Walleye, Sturgeon, or Native trout you can bet there have been letters, conversations, and visits to town hall meetings. I have seen a number of AO members at the public discussions. In fact there was a town hall in Nisku a while back that dealt with Pigeon Lake Management. The attendee's were 75% of folks that frequent this site.

While I agree that stocked trout are less precious than the afore mentioned species it does not mean however that people will accept less than mediocre management of this style of fishery.

You began with some slightly meaningful thoughts but with each new post it seems your argument starts to lose credibility and steam. Just my opinion however.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Yup, I'm staying out of this one but it ought to be good.

You are a true fisherman Dave. 'Cause that's the biggest fish tale I've ever seen.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

Sorry but I personally think more time, effort and study should be put in to saving our stocks of naturally occurring fish like pike, walleye, whites, perch, burbot, bull trout, browns, brookies etc...

It's these stocked waters that are currently saving the native fish of Alberta. Without the stocked lakes, those lakes would have nothing left in them.

As mentioned, browns and brookies are actually invasive species.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Doc

So to get this straight, any body of water that is currently not stocked is a slew? I'm sure you meant slough? And every body of water that is stocked but not a "quality" fishery is a lake?

No, I meant what I typed......SLEW! If you are going to correct my terminology and grammar at least take the time to get it right! Or, is this a case of "slough" being correct because that's the way that YOU spell it.

slough 1 (sl, slou) also slew (sl)
n.
1. A depression or hollow, usually filled with deep mud or mire.
2. also slue A stagnant swamp, marsh, bog, or pond, especially as part of a bayou, inlet, or backwater.
3. A state of deep despair or moral degradation.

How do you feel now wise-guy?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

No, I meant what I typed......SLEW! If you are going to correct my terminology and grammar at least take the time to get it right! Or, is this a case of "slough" being correct because that's the way that YOU spell it.

slough 1 (sl, slou) also slew (sl)
n.
1. A depression or hollow, usually filled with deep mud or mire.
2. also slue A stagnant swamp, marsh, bog, or pond, especially as part of a bayou, inlet, or backwater.
3. A state of deep despair or moral degradation.

How do you feel now wise-guy?

Congrats.

You can now say you posted one correct fact this whole thread.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Heron

I guess I'll have to come clean here. Put me on the list of the defeated people who want to have a better chance to catch larger fish without having to drive a riduiculous distance past 6 lakes that could be decent fishing spots. I feel like a great weight has been lifted from my shoulders.

I think at the root some of the resentment around here is the perception that all of us on the side of delayed harvest are elitest snobby fly fisherman who just want a photo opportunity with that trophy while sporting thousands of dollars of gear. Take me off that list please. I and my children will fish anywhere for anything that swims. I work and have young children in various activities so my fishing time is limited right now. When my life brings me to visit my mother in Consort I take my children to the what use to be a settling pond to catch a few trout. Because my wife and I keep our trailer at Wabamun we fish for pike because it is handy. I know from personal experience and watching the pike threads that Wabamun is fishing fantastic now. Wonder why? No harvest. When I am obligated to meet friends at Pigeon for the weekend we go walleye fishing. None of these are my first choice but I fish where I can when I can.

Oh put my kids on the defeated list too. They would sooner catch larger fish closer to home as well.

If everyone on here was as honest as you two fellas that admitted that "quality" fisheries was about creating lakes that are close and easy to get to and make it easy to catch big fish then everyone would be admitting it. The reason that they don't is because then their perception of themselves as sportsmen would change. I already know what it is despite people's best efforts to camouflage the truth.

I realize that some people that are pro "quality" fisheries are not all fly fishermen with thousands of dollars worth of gear but the one thing that they share in common with those types is the elitist mentality. IMO It takes a special type of person to think that their their way of doing things is superior to mine and they know better of what's best for me. There are great examples of this elitism throughout this thread. Just have a look at what people type about anglers that go out and catch small fish. Somehow, somewhere along the lines, someone decided that they were superior to anglers that catch small fish because they only want to catch big fish.

I see nothing wrong with the way that you chose to fish, in fact it best describes the way that I fish. It makes perfect sense to me that if you have a trailer at Wab you'd fish there but I don't hear you saying that it should be changed to a "quality" trout fishery just because that's what you want. You accept the fact that it's a good pike lake and you fish it for that reason. It makes perfect sense to me.

I will however, disagree that your kids are the norm with only wanting to catch big fish, if that was the point that you were making. Sure kids like to catch big fish, I did too when I was a kid, and I still do. But to create an environment that lessens the challenge and makes it easier to do it takes away from the whole experience.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Congrats.

You can now say you posted one correct fact this whole thread.

You don't contribute anything to the discussion with that kind of thing.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

No, I meant what I typed......SLEW! If you are going to correct my terminology and grammar at least take the time to get it right! Or, is this a case of "slough" being correct because that's the way that YOU spell it.

slough 1 (sl, slou) also slew (sl)
n.
1. A depression or hollow, usually filled with deep mud or mire.
2. also slue A stagnant swamp, marsh, bog, or pond, especially as part of a bayou, inlet, or backwater.
3. A state of deep despair or moral degradation.

How do you feel now wise-guy?

That's your reply?

To funny Dave

You got nothing.

Slew is actually derived from the word slough because of folks that didn't know how to spell it as did the word slue.

Definition of SLEW

variant of 1slough 1b

The actual word slew comes from the word slay as in "He slew the dragon".
Slough is proper but whatever, this is about quality fishing and all you came up with is... well nothing.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by Doc

It's these stocked waters that are currently saving the native fish of Alberta. Without the stocked lakes, those lakes would have nothing left in them.

As mentioned, browns and brookies are actually invasive species.

They are but they also co-habitate,, the snakehead (mind you) may not or is not. I think Rainbows were introduced when Starlings were introduced.

I'm glad Burbs are a fish with a limit now (though it's fairly high at 10). Even the lowly sucker needs to be treated with more grace.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

If everyone on here was as honest as you two fellas that admitted that "quality" fisheries was about creating lakes that are close and easy to get to and make it easy to catch big fish then everyone would be admitting it. The reason that they don't is because then their perception of themselves as sportsmen would change. I already know what it is despite people's best efforts to camouflage the truth.

Direction change...let's ignore facts now and discuss the elitism that is destroying all of us. How dare people want to catch a stocked trout larger than 9 inches. I am with Dave. Jail for the lot of you. If only you all went to church regularly...you would not be demanding sinfully larger fish to catch. Shame on all of you!

Dave you just don't hear. TO you within the confines of this thread...are purporting a 16 inch rainbow to be big. Others are saying a 25 inch rainbow is big. You are just not getting it. Fighting so hard for small fish. Don't you see how you are coming across being a troller? Maybe you just got yourself down this path and are trying desperately to save face by continuing to argue for 9 inch rainbows everywhere in the Province.

[Doc]

Originally Posted by GustavMahler

They are but they also co-habitate,, the snakehead (mind you) may not or is not. I think Rainbows were introduced when Starlings were introduced.

I don't know anything Starlings other than they are birds. But the rainbow trout is native to Alberta (although only from the Athabasca system).

[Doc]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

IMO It takes a special type of person to think that their their way of doing things is superior to mine and they know better of what's best for me. There are great examples of this elitism throughout this thread. Just have a look at what people type about anglers that go out and catch small fish. Somehow, somewhere along the lines, someone decided that they were superior to anglers that catch small fish because they only want to catch big fish.

Oh my, this is way to funny.

Here's my reply...

It takes a special type of person to think that their way of doing things is superior to mine and they know better of what's best for me. Just have a look at what people type about anglers that want to catch larger fish. Somehow, somewhere along the lines, someone decided that they were superior to anglers that want to catch bigger fish because they only want to catch average fish.

We're not asking for all stocked lakes to be quality lakes Dave just a percentage. You're saying we can't have any of the current put and takes.

Hmmm, that kind of backfired on you heh?

[Gust]

Originally Posted by Doc

I don't know anything Starlings other than they are birds. But the rainbow trout is native to Alberta (although only from the Athabasca system).

way off thread but there was a group that thought North America should have all the species named in Shakespeare and then some. So the Rainbow is native? It's crazy, wikipedia is a click away, I should go look up Trout but then I'll get stuck there and end up reading about the history of the kleenex or cable knit sweaters.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Doc

Oh my, this is way to funny.

Here's my reply...

It takes a special type of person to think that their way of doing things is superior to mine and they know better of what's best for me. Just have a look at what people type about anglers that want to catch larger fish. Somehow, somewhere along the lines, someone decided that they were superior to anglers that want to catch bigger fish because they only want to catch average fish.

We're not asking for all stocked lakes to be quality lakes Dave just a percentage. You're saying we can't have any of the current put and takes.

Hmmm, that kind of backfired on you heh?

Stop it Doc...just stop it...

You are killing me... I wanted to post that...

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by GustavMahler

way off thread but there was a group that thought North America should have all the species named in Shakespeare and then some. So the Rainbow is native? It's crazy, wikipedia is a click away, I should go look up Trout but then I'll get stuck there and end up reading about the history of the kleenex or cable knit sweaters.

The Athabascan Rainbow Trout is the only native rainbow trout in Alberta. It is a remnant from the glacial ages... In their natural environment...they are just the perfect size for Dave's elitism.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

The Athabascan Rainbow Trout is the only native rainbow trout in Alberta. It is a remnant from the glacial ages... In their natural environment...they are just the perfect size for Dave's elitism.

I like Dave, he's sticking to his guns,,, I also like Docs posts and a few of yours and Bigtoads gnashy wit. A really good screenplay would have the four of you guys stuck in a boat, with 3 beers and two fishing rods and one lure and a rabbi,, rabbi's always make it funny.

[Doc]

Sundancefisher, you're right. Using the smiley faces is fun.

I think Dave needs one of a sad face back peddling.