Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fishing Discussion

View Poll Results: Do You Support A Proposed Fishing Regulation Change For Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes?
Yes 94 68.12%
No 27 19.57%
Don't Care 17 12.32%
Voters: 138. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 01-10-2011, 10:07 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryF View Post
9. It is a poor lesson in conservation to teach young anglers to keep large spawning sized fish and not smaller eating sized ones. But its better to fish out the small ones so that they can't get to spawning size? Lots of fish become sexually mature prior to being 20" long, others become 20" long prior to sexaul maturity. Will dig up some biological text books for you to read on that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_fisheries

".......a group of scientists offered the following ten commandments for ecosystem-based fisheries scientists[36]

Keep a perspective that is holistic, risk-adverse and adaptive.
Maintain an “old growth” structure in fish populations, since big, old and fat female fish have been shown to be the best spawners, but are also susceptible to overfishing.
Characterize and maintain the natural spatial structure of fish stocks, so that management boundaries match natural boundaries in the sea.
Monitor and maintain seafloor habitats to make sure fish have food and shelter.
Maintain resilient ecosystems that are able to withstand occasional shocks.
Identify and maintain critical food-web connections, including predators and forage species.
Adapt to ecosystem changes through time, both short-term and on longer cycles of decades or centuries, including global climate change.
Account for evolutionary changes caused by fishing, which tends to remove large, older fish.
Include the actions of humans and their social and economic systems in all ecological equations.” "
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 01-10-2011, 10:08 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
http://www.acuteangling.com/Reference/C&RMortality.html

Key Mortality Factors

Two factors predominate when considering the causes of angled fish mortality: the hooking location, and the degree of physiological stress suffered by the fish.

Hooking location - This factor demonstrates the largest source of variation in mortality observed in the studies and experiments reviewed. It is consistently shown that deep-hooking (hooking in the gills or gullet) causes relatively high mortality, up to 35% when accompanied by bleeding, whereas normal hooking (lips or jaw area) consistently causes minimal mortality, which is consistently less than 5% and often less than 1%. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources, in its Recreational Catch and Release Mortality research program concludes that the location of the hook wound is the single most important factor influencing catch and release mortality (4). If the hook wound affects a vital organ, mortality, is high. The location of the wound site has been demonstrated to be a function of hook size, type, the use of natural bait versus artificial lures and additional situational factors. Studies show that when fish are hooked in the lips or jaw area (shallow hooked), mortality is negligible, typically less than 1% (4,5). Conversely, mortality is at its highest when fish are hooked in the esophagus or gills (deep hooked) (5,11). Necropsies performed on gut hooked fish in a study by (5) Grover, et al, found that the majority had sustained major internal damage to the heart, stomach or liver. Grover demonstrates that hooking location effectively correlates to mortality rate.

Physiological Stress - Exercise performed by fish during a catch event, or caused by angler handling methods and air exposure all create measurable physiological responses. Physiological stress in fish has been measured by experimenters using cortisol, lactate and respiratory gas concentrations.

Although the catch and release mortality studies reviewed do not show statistical results directly correlating the degree of physiological stress to mortality, an experiment by Ferguson and Tufts examined the effects of artificially induced stress on rainbow trout. They concluded that various forms of physiological stress contribute to fish mortality (12). It is reasonable to infer that such stress also contributes to mortality in angled fish and therefore, that minimization of stress assists in reduction of catch and release mortality.
Same can apply to those you hook but don't land...those you play too long with poor tackle selection...trebles versus single...barbed versus unbarbed.

No problems have been seen with these regs at Bullshead.

Still...one fact you have missed... The current practice of killing everything caught after stocking...has a way, way higher mortality rate.

The mortality rate you are referring to is easily mitigated with the stocking densities that F&W biologists will optimize.

Unless you are referring to PETA's demand of no catch and release fishing period. Is that your stance?

I have personally caught and release the same very large trout in a private put and take lake more than 20 or 30 times. The trout is still swimming to be caught again. Same applies to numerous other trout greater than 20 inches.

This argument of yours is a very weak one as to why to not improve a fishery but you do support PETA at least.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 01-10-2011, 10:16 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_fisheries

".......a group of scientists offered the following ten commandments for ecosystem-based fisheries scientists[36]

Keep a perspective that is holistic, risk-adverse and adaptive.
Maintain an “old growth” structure in fish populations, since big, old and fat female fish have been shown to be the best spawners, but are also susceptible to overfishing.
Characterize and maintain the natural spatial structure of fish stocks, so that management boundaries match natural boundaries in the sea.
Monitor and maintain seafloor habitats to make sure fish have food and shelter.
Maintain resilient ecosystems that are able to withstand occasional shocks.
Identify and maintain critical food-web connections, including predators and forage species.
Adapt to ecosystem changes through time, both short-term and on longer cycles of decades or centuries, including global climate change.
Account for evolutionary changes caused by fishing, which tends to remove large, older fish.
Include the actions of humans and their social and economic systems in all ecological equations.” "
Again...you are not looking at the big picture...just trying to cloud the common sense facts.

On one hand you are advocating killing the trout when they are small as this is a put and take lake...therefore very little chance they will spawn period.

The proposed change to provide a readily accessible quality fishery near Calgary will allow the delayed harvest of Cutties after 20 inches. Prior to reaching 20 inches they will have a chance to spawn at least and maybe for a couple of seasons before harvesting is possible. Harvesting before at 12 inches...no chance at all to spawn.

Now factor in that this is a stocked put and take lake...not being proposed now or in the past as a lake regulated for harvest based upon natural reproduction and replacement fisheries management.

So what are you saying... Now you want to slash harvest dramatically in order to allow successful natural spawning and population replacement/recruitment? You want to allow harvest of only cutties less than 12 inches and if they grow bigger then they will be released to spawn?

Your arguments are so all over the map...you make reasonable debate sometimes taxing...but always interesting.

Good try on this one...but IMHO you have failed to make a valid point.

P.S.

I am getting seriously concerned you are against put and take fisheries based upon leading arguments like this.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 01-10-2011, 10:27 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryF View Post
9. It is a poor lesson in conservation to teach young anglers to keep large spawning sized fish and not smaller eating sized ones. But its better to fish out the small ones so that they can't get to spawning size? Lots of fish become sexually mature prior to being 20" long, others become 20" long prior to sexaul maturity. Will dig up some biological text books for you to read on that.
More info on keeping smaller "eater" sized fish and letting the bigger "spawner" sized ones go:

http://www.ffc.org.au/FFC_files/Sust...BOFFFF_web.pdf

"Many fishers have understood the need to let the big breeders go for a long time now.....

What does BOFFFF mean?
BOFFFF = Big Old Fat Fecund Female Fish
BOFFFF are the larger, older females which, according
to recent research results, generally produce a lot more
offspring, more times per year, than younger females do.
Additionally, the offspring of larger females are often
healthier and more likely to survive. Older fi sh are more
likely to survive and contribute in the ‘bad years’ when
environmental factors mean reduced recruitment to the fish
stocks. For many species, one of the best ways to ensure long
term successful reproduction and replenishment of the fi sh
stocks is to protect the larger, healthy female breeders."
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 01-10-2011, 10:40 PM
fishpro fishpro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NW Calgary
Posts: 1,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
More info on keeping smaller "eater" sized fish and letting the bigger "spawner" sized ones go:

http://www.ffc.org.au/FFC_files/Sust...BOFFFF_web.pdf

"Many fishers have understood the need to let the big breeders go for a long time now.....

What does BOFFFF mean?
BOFFFF = Big Old Fat Fecund Female Fish
BOFFFF are the larger, older females which, according
to recent research results, generally produce a lot more
offspring, more times per year, than younger females do.
Additionally, the offspring of larger females are often
healthier and more likely to survive. Older fi sh are more
likely to survive and contribute in the ‘bad years’ when
environmental factors mean reduced recruitment to the fish
stocks. For many species, one of the best ways to ensure long
term successful reproduction and replenishment of the fi sh
stocks is to protect the larger, healthy female breeders."
I completely understand where you are coming from, and you have a very valid concern. There are two main things that keep this from being a necessary consideration.

First of all, the lakes are going to be continually stocked. This is not about trying to establish a self sustaining fishery where it will be important to release the spawners. The population will be maintained through spawning.

Secondly, with the high numbers of anglers per lake in Alberta compared to other provinces, there is another issue to consider. This is that if we protected larger fish and allowed small fish to be harvested, it is likely that very few would make it to a size where they were actually protected.

The fact of the matter is, we are not trying to create a trophy fishery with a self sustaining population. Currently with the regulations how they are, we have lots of fish in the 6"-13" range, with a few over since the size limit is 12". Now if we change the size limit 20", we will have a lake with lots of fish in the 6"-21" range with a few over.

For these reasons, I don't think we need to worry about protecting the spawners. Additionally, very few of these large fish will be spawning anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 01-10-2011, 11:02 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
Same can apply to those you hook but don't land...those you play too long with poor tackle selection...trebles versus single...barbed versus unbarbed. So then it's okay to potentially kill more by making it illegal to keep a smaller fish that are gut hooked?

No problems have been seen with these regs at Bullshead. Kan Lakes are not Bullshead

Still...one fact you have missed... The current practice of killing everything caught after stocking...has a way, way higher mortality rate. I doubt it if you catch your 3 fish and go cook them up on the fire. But, if you have to catch and release 10 fish before catching one big legal to keep one then the potential for fish dying unnecessarily increases.

The mortality rate you are referring to is easily mitigated with the stocking densities that F&W biologists will optimize. Yeah, just through more fish in. We don't need the money for more CO's, etc as was previously posted.

Unless you are referring to PETA's demand of no catch and release fishing period. Is that your stance? Oh, yeah! HUNTERDave is one of them PETA guys! Very good and valid point!

I have personally caught and release the same very large trout in a private put and take lake more than 20 or 30 times. The trout is still swimming to be caught again. Same applies to numerous other trout greater than 20 inches. Yet you want the regs to change so it'll be easier for you to catch bigger (+20"). What is your plan, let them all go after you've caught them?

This argument of yours is a very weak one as to why to not improve a fishery but you do support PETA at least. Don't you just hate it when someone makes a valid point and then provides the facts to support it?

Last edited by HunterDave; 01-10-2011 at 11:13 PM. Reason: messed up
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 01-10-2011, 11:45 PM
fishpro fishpro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NW Calgary
Posts: 1,047
Default

HunterDave, you wrote the following: "I doubt it if you catch your 3 fish and go cook them up on the fire. But, if you have to catch and release 10 fish before catching one big legal to keep one then the potential for fish dying unnecessarily increases."

Please look at the previous studies you posted about hooking mortality. It talks about standard hooking (not gill or gut hooking) as having very low mortality rates. This is why a bait ban is in effect. Very few fish are hooked deep enough with non bait techniques, and as such there is very low mortality. For your situation of catching and releasing 10 fish before getting a keeper having a higher mortality rate than keeping the first three, you would need a mortality rate about 20% on the released fish. This simply is not going to happen when bait it not being used.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 01-10-2011, 11:57 PM
madatter's Avatar
madatter madatter is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 1,840
Default

A dead fish is a dead fish....
It cannot grow bigger and has no chance to spawn,most everybody can understand that I hope!
Mortality at Bullshead appears to be very low considering the pressure on the lake,I can't even remember ever seeing a trout with a deep set hook either.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 01-11-2011, 12:05 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishpro View Post
I completely understand where you are coming from, and you have a very valid concern. There are two main things that keep this from being a necessary consideration.

First of all, the lakes are going to be continually stocked. This is not about trying to establish a self sustaining fishery where it will be important to release the spawners. The population will be maintained through spawning.

Secondly, with the high numbers of anglers per lake in Alberta compared to other provinces, there is another issue to consider. This is that if we protected larger fish and allowed small fish to be harvested, it is likely that very few would make it to a size where they were actually protected.

The fact of the matter is, we are not trying to create a trophy fishery with a self sustaining population. Currently with the regulations how they are, we have lots of fish in the 6"-13" range, with a few over since the size limit is 12". Now if we change the size limit 20", we will have a lake with lots of fish in the 6"-21" range with a few over.

For these reasons, I don't think we need to worry about protecting the spawners. Additionally, very few of these large fish will be spawning anyway.
Fishpro - IMO Fish conservation should not be dismissed based on the assumption that SRD is just going to keep putting more fish in anyway. I have read on this thread that 12" rainbow trout have been caught in L Kan Lake. This is despite the fact that it hasn't been stocked with rainbows since 2002. If what I have read is true, then the Rainbows have/are spawning.

I understand that fishing pressure in Alberta is very high and I accept that. However, if you protected larger spawning sized fish you would have a constant supply of smaller eater sized fish. Only a small percentage of the smaller stocked fish need to reach maturity to offset the mortality rate of the larger bigger fish.

This is not a novel idea and it is accepted worldwide.

IMO if anglers in this province truly want to improve the fishery then attitudes need to change. Handouts of stocked fish is not the answer except perhaps for pothole lakes with no possibility for spawning to occur. In the lakes that fish do have the environment to spawn, even if it is limited, then they should be given the chance to do so. I would suggest that efforts to create a better spawning habitat in those lakes, including Kan Lakes, along with appropriate fish management policies would be an allot better option to just keep looking for handouts.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 01-11-2011, 12:19 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishpro View Post
HunterDave, you wrote the following: "I doubt it if you catch your 3 fish and go cook them up on the fire. But, if you have to catch and release 10 fish before catching one big legal to keep one then the potential for fish dying unnecessarily increases."

Please look at the previous studies you posted about hooking mortality. It talks about standard hooking (not gill or gut hooking) as having very low mortality rates. This is why a bait ban is in effect. Very few fish are hooked deep enough with non bait techniques, and as such there is very low mortality. For your situation of catching and releasing 10 fish before getting a keeper having a higher mortality rate than keeping the first three, you would need a mortality rate about 20% on the released fish. This simply is not going to happen when bait it not being used.
You are assuming that the mortality will come from the hook. The broader picture is that this is a family orientated tourist area that allot of kids will be catching them, dropping them on the ground, kicking them back into the lake, throwing them back in the lake, etc. Not to pick on kids, I can see adults mishandling them as well. Ya gotta think outside the box here.
Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old 01-11-2011, 12:23 AM
fishpro fishpro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NW Calgary
Posts: 1,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Fishpro - IMO Fish conservation should not be dismissed based on the assumption that SRD is just going to keep putting more fish in anyway. I have read on this thread that 12" rainbow trout have been caught in L Kan Lake. This is despite the fact that it hasn't been stocked with rainbows since 2002. If what I have read is true, then the Rainbows have/are spawning.

I understand that fishing pressure in Alberta is very high and I accept that. However, if you protected larger spawning sized fish you would have a constant supply of smaller eater sized fish. Only a small percentage of the smaller stocked fish need to reach maturity to offset the mortality rate of the larger bigger fish.

This is not a novel idea and it is accepted worldwide.

IMO if anglers in this province truly want to improve the fishery then attitudes need to change. Handouts of stocked fish is not the answer except perhaps for pothole lakes with no possibility for spawning to occur. In the lakes that fish do have the environment to spawn, even if it is limited, then they should be given the chance to do so. I would suggest that efforts to create a better spawning habitat in those lakes, including Kan Lakes, along with appropriate fish management policies would be an allot better option to just keep looking for handouts.
Yes, I will completely agree that the rainbows are spawning. However, as was mentioned either earlier in this thread or in the other one, there is a very small amount of spawning occuring, as there simply is not a lot of suitable habitat for it and hence the lake would not be able to sustain a large population of rainbow trout or cutthroat trout no matter how strict the regulations were. This is the very reason that they are stocking these lakes. As far as I know there is no successful spawning by fish in the upper lake, hence the lake would be supported simply by stocking.

Additionally, a size restriction of 50cm will still protect some spawning fish where spawning can occur and allow the fish to spawn once or twice before being harvested. I agree with your postings that a larger fish will contribute more eggs, but you must consider natural mortality as fish age. In turn, although 1 large fish will produce more eggs than a medium sized fish, more eggs in total will come from the medium sized fish simply because there would be more of them.

Some lakes can maintain a very large population of fish through natural reproduction and therefore are not stocked. However, SRD has realized that Kananaskis Lakes cannot support a large population of cutthroat and/or rainbow trout, therefore have decided to continue stocking the lakes. The goal is not to develop a full self-sustaining population and I doubt that will ever be the goal. It will remain as a stocked fishery, and the proposed will be an effective way to maintain and improve it.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 01-11-2011, 12:31 AM
fishpro fishpro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NW Calgary
Posts: 1,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
You are assuming that the mortality will come from the hook. The broader picture is that this is a family orientated tourist area that allot of kids will be catching them, dropping them on the ground, kicking them back into the lake, throwing them back in the lake, etc. Not to pick on kids, I can see adults mishandling them as well. Ya gotta think outside the box here.
Understandable point, and a realistic concern. If this proves to be the case there are things that could be done. People could bring this to the attention of SRD or Kananaskis Country and have signs posted to educate people. I'm sure there will be many people who are or will become very passionate about this fishery and will take steps to educate these people, likely by kindly approaching them and offering them a helping hand. Furthermore, some people and groups dedicated to improving our fisheries would potentially provide the cash and time to provide ways of educating these people. It has been done on other waterbodies in the province before, including one individual who paid for and posted many of the regulation signs along central Alberta streams.

At this point it is difficult to know the potential extent of this problem, but I believe that it would be worth it to go ahead with such a plan and then work around the odd hardship rather than avoiding the plan all together. Just my thought.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 01-11-2011, 12:31 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishpro View Post
Yes, I will completely agree that the rainbows are spawning. However, as was mentioned either earlier in this thread or in the other one, there is a very small amount of spawning occuring, as there simply is not a lot of suitable habitat for it and hence the lake would not be able to sustain a large population of rainbow trout or cutthroat trout no matter how strict the regulations were. This is the very reason that they are stocking these lakes. As far as I know there is no successful spawning by fish in the upper lake, hence the lake would be supported simply by stocking.

Additionally, a size restriction of 50cm will still protect some spawning fish where spawning can occur and allow the fish to spawn once or twice before being harvested. I agree with your postings that a larger fish will contribute more eggs, but you must consider natural mortality as fish age. In turn, although 1 large fish will produce more eggs than a medium sized fish, more eggs in total will come from the medium sized fish simply because there would be more of them.

Some lakes can maintain a very large population of fish through natural reproduction and therefore are not stocked. However, SRD has realized that Kananaskis Lakes cannot support a large population of cutthroat and/or rainbow trout, therefore have decided to continue stocking the lakes. The goal is not to develop a full self-sustaining population and I doubt that will ever be the goal. It will remain as a stocked fishery, and the proposed will be an effective way to maintain and improve it.
Did I read this right? If so, how can the lake sustain a large population of even larger trout as proposed?
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 01-11-2011, 12:43 AM
fishpro fishpro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NW Calgary
Posts: 1,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Sorry, I don't understand this at all.
I'm saying that the Lower lake could not support a large population of rainbows and cutthroats without stocking. There are limited tributaries to the lake, and those that exist have very cold water and limited room for trout to spawn. Fish need appropriate habitat to spawn, and there simply isn't enough of it to sustain a large lake such as this. So even if we were to make the lake completely catch and release (completely hypothetical argument) and not stock it, not enough spawning could occur to maintain high numbers of trout. It would be even harder with harvest allowed. This is why we are not concerned so much with the spawning and natural reproduction, and also why SRD has designated this as a lake to stock on a regular basis.

I should note that I realize some spawning occurs and therefore some rainbow trout have still been caught, but overall the fish in the lake resulting from spawning are relatively few and far between.

I also am not sure about the bull trout spawning, as I know they have been much more successful. Perhaps this is because they are fall spawners, or they have found the one quality spawning stream and taken over it, or maybe this stream isn't suitable for other trout in the spring. No matter what it is, I realize that the lake is sustaining a healthy population of bull trout and my above argument does not apply to them.
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 01-11-2011, 12:46 AM
fishpro fishpro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NW Calgary
Posts: 1,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Did I read this right? If so, how can the lake sustain a large population of even larger trout as proposed?
Sorry, what I meant is that it could never support a large population simply through natural reproduction, but it can support large numbers of stocked fish. This is why these lakes will be continually stocked.
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 01-11-2011, 12:54 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Well, it sounds like you might know more about this issue than other people that have been posting on this thread and there is finally something on here that I can digest.

With that I bid you a good night.
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 01-11-2011, 06:09 AM
GaryF GaryF is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 178
Default

Now that was a good read, this is still the only topic I have seen not become a personal ****ing match, but a really good debate. Kudos to everyone!! My top 10 list will be done up this afternoon.
__________________
Enjoying the peace and serenity of this wonderful sport!!
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 01-11-2011, 08:10 AM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,794
Default A couple of things

1] I understand Steelhead's pain. I've watched the elected officials of Alberta gut SRD time after time.
2] In the 55 years I've fished Alberta, I've caught 20" trout in most lakes. They weren't trophy or even quality, they were pan sized.
3] After experiencing SRD continuously screwing up the size of fish in our lakes, a Quality Lake Policy was developed in an attempt to kick start SRD back on track. To this point, the jury is still out. Beaver Lake has now been managed to a third of the size requirement for a Quality Lake. And yes there were studies after studies, netting after netting and creel census after creel census. Can SRD really manage a lake to provide fish over 20"? Still waiting for some evidence.

Enforcement is not about petitions, it's about getting off your butt and raising the money to get more enforcement in the field. Streamwatch programs exist because sportsman care. The Streamwatch program has nearly doubled the presence of enforcement people in the eastern slopes of Alberta.

Lakes the raise larger fish are few and widely scattered. At least one of them was completed w/o much effort by SRD other than meetings.


regards,


Don
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 01-11-2011, 08:28 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryF View Post
Now that was a good read, this is still the only topic I have seen not become a personal ****ing match, but a really good debate. Kudos to everyone!! My top 10 list will be done up this afternoon.
I agree.

Fishpro...you should change your name to Debatepro. You showed better patience and penmanship than any of us to date in reiterating in a clear and concise manner the concerns you addressed. Good job.

In answer to your bull trout spawning habitat question...there is great habitat for bull trout to spawn in...though limited due to the length of the creek in question. While not exceptional it does provide enough for maintaining the population in the creek and lake. Bull trout require clean water with upwelling springs to control the temperature and the right sized gravel and stream velocity and depth. Some day I will give you a tour of some spawning bulls. They are awesome to watch.

Keep up the good work.

Sun
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 01-11-2011, 09:43 AM
GaryF GaryF is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 178
Default

I thought I would have a big list as to why this petition for regs changes is important, and I only came up with the one that matters most to me.

1. it will bring to light the desire of local anglers to have a quality fishery within a resonable driving distance of calgary. The following links are all to papers and studies done by SRD on quality fisheries. You will find the common theme of local angler interest in all of them. Without this petition presented, they will not know that there is a local interest to proceed with all of the studies mentioned in all of these reports and documents.

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/ManagingPr...ies-Jan-08.pdf

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishingHun...le-Jun2010.pdf

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishingHun...es-Jun2010.pdf

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/ManagingPr...lts-Sep-08.pdf

I also attempted to locate the same quality fisheries reports for ES1, but suprisingly there are none, as there are no quality fisheries being managed in ES1 at this time.
__________________
Enjoying the peace and serenity of this wonderful sport!!
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 01-11-2011, 11:07 AM
smitty9 smitty9 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 695
Default Some questions I have

Just to jump back in:

Look, I see where Steelhead and HunterDave are coming from, in terms of a general point of this could be an experiment that goes wrong. Fair enough, but I'd like to see SRD and the angling community risk it.

However, some of my arguments have rested on the premise of the lakes being a big uptapped potential. I still see it that way.

But its clear that there are smarter people than me debating this, and/or clearly have more information (flawed or not). SO I have some questions:

1) Is there a significant probability that the lake levels could be restored/stabilized to increase the productivity of the littoral zone?

2) Would #1 involve alot of arm wrestling with Trans-Alta to help/cooperate? I thought the hydro-generation was slowly being phased out.

3) Yes, I recognize that the lakes' levels are artificially high. But so what? We've already messed with the system, why not optimize it for ecological and angling purposes, if the primary reason for the dams gets eliminated.

4) Could there be a way to improve spawning habitat for cutthroats and rainbows (bulls too, and I assume suckers are doing fine without our help). My experience has shown that, with some elbow grease, the quality of the habitat can be modified. But water temp? Is there anyway to make it more ideal? I am completely ignorant on that specific...

In my idealistic, rose-colored, naive world, I see 2 lakes that could be top AB fishing destinations if managed properly, but I am assuming alot here in terms of those lakes having the necessary raw ingredients to work with. I know that you can certainly make an attempt to have quality fishery without necessarily addressing those questions above, but, I thought I'd ask anyways.

I understand that its not exactly a fair or valid comparison, but as I see it, we need more quality fisheries that are as successful as Bullshead.

Angling is generally popular (despite the overall decrease in license sales), here in AB, flyfishing has been growing, I each year I see more pressure on more fragile watersheds like creeks and streams. Having more stillwater options, both quality and regular meat 'put and take' options, can only be a good thing, if for the single purpose it diverts more pressure to lakes.

And, as pointed out earlier with the SRD pdf's and stocking lists, the bait allowed, 5 fish per day fisheries VASTLY outnumber quality fisheries. I mean seriously, you only a need a couple of hands to count quality fisheries in this province, whereas the classic put and take trout lakes number in the dozens.

Anyways, if someone could shed some light on those questions, I'd be grateful.

Smitty
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 01-11-2011, 12:11 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty9 View Post
Just to jump back in:

Look, I see where Steelhead and HunterDave are coming from, in terms of a general point of this could be an experiment that goes wrong. Fair enough, but I'd like to see SRD and the angling community risk it.

However, some of my arguments have rested on the premise of the lakes being a big uptapped potential. I still see it that way.

But its clear that there are smarter people than me debating this, and/or clearly have more information (flawed or not). SO I have some questions:

1) Is there a significant probability that the lake levels could be restored/stabilized to increase the productivity of the littoral zone?

2) Would #1 involve alot of arm wrestling with Trans-Alta to help/cooperate? I thought the hydro-generation was slowly being phased out.

3) Yes, I recognize that the lakes' levels are artificially high. But so what? We've already messed with the system, why not optimize it for ecological and angling purposes, if the primary reason for the dams gets eliminated.

4) Could there be a way to improve spawning habitat for cutthroats and rainbows (bulls too, and I assume suckers are doing fine without our help). My experience has shown that, with some elbow grease, the quality of the habitat can be modified. But water temp? Is there anyway to make it more ideal? I am completely ignorant on that specific...

In my idealistic, rose-colored, naive world, I see 2 lakes that could be top AB fishing destinations if managed properly, but I am assuming alot here in terms of those lakes having the necessary raw ingredients to work with. I know that you can certainly make an attempt to have quality fishery without necessarily addressing those questions above, but, I thought I'd ask anyways.

I understand that its not exactly a fair or valid comparison, but as I see it, we need more quality fisheries that are as successful as Bullshead.

Angling is generally popular (despite the overall decrease in license sales), here in AB, flyfishing has been growing, I each year I see more pressure on more fragile watersheds like creeks and streams. Having more stillwater options, both quality and regular meat 'put and take' options, can only be a good thing, if for the single purpose it diverts more pressure to lakes.

And, as pointed out earlier with the SRD pdf's and stocking lists, the bait allowed, 5 fish per day fisheries VASTLY outnumber quality fisheries. I mean seriously, you only a need a couple of hands to count quality fisheries in this province, whereas the classic put and take trout lakes number in the dozens.

Anyways, if someone could shed some light on those questions, I'd be grateful.

Smitty
Point 1 etc.

From what I have heard there is an initiative currently under way that will hopefully result in the water level being stabilized in LKL. If successful, this would likely result in a tripling of productivity due to re-establishment of a productive littoral zone.

Yes there is some negotiating involved. There is business and politics mixed in.

Point 4

There is a proposal in place to create an artificial spawning channel off of Rawson Creek for the Upper Lake. Not sure if one could be constructed off of Kent Creek trip of LKL or what the water temps are there. Smith Dorrien is too cold for spawning any significant numbers of Cutts. Few rainbows ever try.

Bolton is the best bet for cutts and bows spawning as evidenced by them spawning there. I have not done a spawning survey or habitat assessment there so I can't comment but maybe they can do some monifications to the creek to improve spawning success.

Sun
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 01-11-2011, 12:44 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Smitty...

Another point to note that if the water level is stabilized in LKL, then it will be possible to enhance the old Kananaskis River channel for cutthroat trout spawning. This river channel, which is located just east of the Interlakes Campground, was the most important spawning area for the native cutthroat trout in LKL before UKL was dammed. If the water level in LKL is stabilized at a about 3 to 4 m below the full supply level, then there would be a couple of hundred metres of the old Kananaskis River channel downstream of the waterfall that could be enhanced for cutthroat trout spawning. If this happens, it would not only reduce the number of cutthroat trout that needed to be stocked in LKL, it would also provide a great viewing opportunity in the spring for campers in the Interlakes Campground to view large cutts spawning in this channel. Of course, this channel would need to be closed to protect the spawners.
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 01-11-2011, 06:46 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

As of right now.

98 people on HunterDave's poll...pretty much the biggest turnout on an AOF poll. It would great to get to 200...but 100 is a really good representative sampling.

273 signatures on the petition. I wonder how many signatures are on the petitions at the fishing shops? Anyone know? It is often hard for petitions to work at businesses as they don't have time to remind everyone about it. Still...I feel this is a solid number...but maybe F&W needs 300 - 500...?

Keep the names coming folks!

Link to Petition.
http://www.petitiononline.com/dekkbeed/petition.html
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 01-11-2011, 11:54 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
98 people on HunterDave's poll...pretty much the biggest turnout on an AOF poll.

Link to Petition.
http://www.petitiononline.com/dekkbeed/petition.html
I think that you should just stick to facts Sundance.

284 votes on the crossbow poll about 3 weeks ago comes immediately to mind.
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 01-12-2011, 08:04 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

LOL

I will clarify for you..

A great turn out for a AOF poll in the "fishing" section. I don't follow the hunting.

The last 10 polls in the fishing area was...

8
218
14
37
49
49
108
41
79
17

So your 103 in a short period of time is not bad. Still maybe a number of people just jumped straight to the petition and skipped the poll. Hopefully they keep signing.

How goes your review of Fishpro's dialog with ya?
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 01-12-2011, 10:42 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
LOL

I will clarify for you..

A great turn out for a AOF poll in the "fishing" section. I don't follow the hunting.

The last 10 polls in the fishing area was...

8
218
14
37
49
49
108
41
79
17

So your 103 in a short period of time is not bad. Still maybe a number of people just jumped straight to the petition and skipped the poll. Hopefully they keep signing.

How goes your review of Fishpro's dialog with ya?
Indeed, providing clear and factual information is always a good idea in order to gain and maintain your credibility.

I haven't reviewed Fishpro's dialogue with me. His points were presented in such a credible, respectful and intelligent manner that I don't feel the requirement to review it.
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 01-12-2011, 11:49 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Indeed, providing clear and factual information is always a good idea in order to gain and maintain your credibility.

I haven't reviewed Fishpro's dialogue with me. His points were presented in such a credible, respectful and intelligent manner that I don't feel the requirement to review it.
We agree once again. He did an excellent job. I have deep respect for his prose.

So have you signed the petition yet. Please say no... If you said yes then it means you ignored everything I said and just had fun with me. If you say no...then all is right with the world still.
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 01-13-2011, 02:34 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
So have you signed the petition yet. Please say no... If you said yes then it means you ignored everything I said and just had fun with me. If you say no...then all is right with the world still.
No, I haven't signed the petition.

In fact, if I fished there all of the time I'd be starting my own petition to try to head this one off. Personally, I'd rather catch three harder to get 20" trout per day that you are currently allowed in Kan Lake rather than only one easy to catch one. I'm sure that everyone understood that when they signed the poll so they deserve what they get if this passes.

You guys down in Calgary can reduce your possession limits all that you want as long as you don't try to come up this way and do it. As soon as the weather warms up a bit a few of us are headed to Carson Lake to bring home our 5 trout limits and I'm pretty sure that some of them will be +20" if we want to keep them that big. It's nice to have that option.
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 01-13-2011, 05:31 AM
GaryF GaryF is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
You guys down in Calgary can reduce your possession limits all that you want as long as you don't try to come up this way and do it. As soon as the weather warms up a bit a few of us are headed to Carson Lake to bring home our 5 trout limits and I'm pretty sure that some of them will be +20" if we want to keep them that big. It's nice to have that option.
So this is all about keeping what you catch after all then. Not studies that haven't been done, economical impacts and everything else that you were stating as main reasons for your diagreement with the petition. Keeping the limit high isn't even on your top 10 list, but your statement makes it your top priority. With enough time, everyone slips up and the truth comes out. Thanks tho, you helped us put tons of information out there.
__________________
Enjoying the peace and serenity of this wonderful sport!!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.