Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fishing Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-06-2023, 07:56 AM
deschambault deschambault is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 385
Default Eating an Alberta walleye

For the first time in many years we got to eat a walleye from a southern reservoir this weekend. We caught and ate a legal walleye from Travers reservoir last Saturday. Thanks to F&W for finally opening up several southern reservoirs to a small slot limit retention. Eating the odd fish is still part of the experience.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-06-2023, 10:03 AM
Drewski Canuck Drewski Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,918
Default

You do not have to be thankful for the privilege of eating a walleye, you have to ask why it has taken so long.

There is an ideology with the Fisheries Biologists that Walleye are not to be eaten. If they wish to dispute this, then they can please explain why it took a Wildrose MLA to organize Town Hall Meetings in Bonnyville and St. Paul to get lakes that had been closed for 20 years to finally be opened to walleye retention.

The lakes from all index netting were very abundant with walleye to the point where there were few perch or pike.

The Bios explained that they wanted representation from at least 5 year classes, or some garbage story like that. From sizes ranging from 6" to 8 Pds, the criteria was met from fisherman experience.

Wildrose sold alot of memberships at those Town Hall meetings as finally someone stood up to the Buerocrats.


Most of the large Southern Reservoirs are for irrigation, not fishing, and can be drawn down to the point where the fish will winterkill. Because of that reality, the limits should be very generous, as the resource is not permanent.


Drewski
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-06-2023, 04:47 PM
deschambault deschambault is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 385
Default

I'm not real grateful, just surprised to see a bit of retention finally allowed on the reservoirs southeast of Calgary. I have asked several COs at Crawling Valley, Newell and Travers over the years why there was total catch and release on walleye and none had a scientific based answer. By the way, unless a dam breaks literally I wouldn't expect to see winterkill in reservoirs 50 to 100+ in depth. All of them produce very large fish who have been there a long time. It was just a nice event, actually getting an Alberta walleye to eat without having to wait for a tag.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-06-2023, 07:08 PM
I’d rather be outdoors I’d rather be outdoors is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 877
Default

Sad it took them this long to loosen the grip of draconian regulations, but happy it’s finally here. They may one day realize that stocking of a forage base (minnows or rntr) is good to bolster existing populations. One baby step at a time. Slots are a big win.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-07-2023, 10:17 AM
Drewski Canuck Drewski Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,918
Default

The Southern Alberta Reservoirs have some deep sections, but seeing what droughts year after year did to the reservoirs on the Colorado River system, some down over 200 feet, there is no guarantee that 50 FOW will not be lost to irrigation and Alberta's obligation to flow through so many cubic meters of water per minute to Saskatchewan. Yes, this is a thing.

All the same, the walleye limits can be more generous given the impact on everything else when the population of walleye is booming to the detriment of all other species.

When a walleye is over 8 pounds, it has spawned for about 15 years, and has created hundreds of thousands of offspring. As these fish get older, their eggs are less viable, so why not let limited tags for fish in the 28 " plus range? These large fish eventually die, as has been seen in lakes like Pigeon where there were strict tag numbers. The really old fish just died out over time.

That big fish has done its job spawning, and when dead on the bottom of the lake, has been lost for the fisherman to utilize when it naturally dies off.

So why not tags for big fish at the end of their spawning life?

Drewski
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-07-2023, 11:12 AM
FlyTheory's Avatar
FlyTheory FlyTheory is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,477
Default

Let us remember how the lakes are now, and see what happens when the lakes are fished for keeps after 5 years. Jury is out if we’re living the good old days, or if they’re in the future.

I think a balance should have been reached between AEP and the local anglers, and a general tag system may be the answer. We’ll see, I’m slightly indifferent to the outcome.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-07-2023, 11:53 AM
pikergolf's Avatar
pikergolf pikergolf is online now
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11,286
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck View Post
You do not have to be thankful for the privilege of eating a walleye, you have to ask why it has taken so long.

There is an ideology with the Fisheries Biologists that Walleye are not to be eaten. If they wish to dispute this, then they can please explain why it took a Wildrose MLA to organize Town Hall Meetings in Bonnyville and St. Paul to get lakes that had been closed for 20 years to finally be opened to walleye retention.

The lakes from all index netting were very abundant with walleye to the point where there were few perch or pike.

The Bios explained that they wanted representation from at least 5 year classes, or some garbage story like that. From sizes ranging from 6" to 8 Pds, the criteria was met from fisherman experience.

Wildrose sold alot of memberships at those Town Hall meetings as finally someone stood up to the Buerocrats.


Most of the large Southern Reservoirs are for irrigation, not fishing, and can be drawn down to the point where the fish will winterkill. Because of that reality, the limits should be very generous, as the resource is not permanent.


Drewski
Which southern res. has been drawn down to the point of winter kill other than dam repair?
__________________
“One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain.”

Thomas Sowell
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-07-2023, 01:29 PM
Drewski Canuck Drewski Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,918
Default

I said "can", not "has". Just look to the Colorado River system to see what successive drought years with required water flow obligations did to their water levels in their dams.

So besides dam repairs that you are aware of, the fish are secondary to irrigation needs and what that may do to water levels.

So, why not make use of the resource?

Drewski
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-08-2023, 09:34 AM
fish99's Avatar
fish99 fish99 is online now
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: pigeon lake
Posts: 1,570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck View Post
The Southern Alberta Reservoirs have some deep sections, but seeing what droughts year after year did to the reservoirs on the Colorado River system, some down over 200 feet, there is no guarantee that 50 FOW will not be lost to irrigation and Alberta's obligation to flow through so many cubic meters of water per minute to Saskatchewan. Yes, this is a thing.

All the same, the walleye limits can be more generous given the impact on everything else when the population of walleye is booming to the detriment of all other species.

When a walleye is over 8 pounds, it has spawned for about 15 years, and has created hundreds of thousands of offspring. As these fish get older, their eggs are less viable, so why not let limited tags for fish in the 28 " plus range? These large fish eventually die, as has been seen in lakes like Pigeon where there were strict tag numbers. The really old fish just died out over time.

That big fish has done its job spawning, and when dead on the bottom of the lake, has been lost for the fisherman to utilize when it naturally dies off.

So why not tags for big fish at the end of their spawning life?

Drewski
2x.
by thinning out the walleye there will be enough food for walleye to reach those historical weights that pigeon once had . if walleye feed mid lake like the white fish they would be huge again like the white fish.
walleye need small fish to feed on to get to those plus 10 lb numbers .

Last edited by fish99; 06-08-2023 at 09:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-08-2023, 04:43 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deschambault View Post
For the first time in many years we got to eat a walleye from a southern reservoir this weekend. We caught and ate a legal walleye from Travers reservoir last Saturday. Thanks to F&W for finally opening up several southern reservoirs to a small slot limit retention. Eating the odd fish is still part of the experience.
I'm just happy you got eat some

My soap box burned up in a recent wild fire.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-08-2023, 05:47 PM
pikergolf's Avatar
pikergolf pikergolf is online now
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11,286
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck View Post
I said "can", not "has". Just look to the Colorado River system to see what successive drought years with required water flow obligations did to their water levels in their dams.

So besides dam repairs that you are aware of, the fish are secondary to irrigation needs and what that may do to water levels.

So, why not make use of the resource?

Drewski
The reservoirs are filled every fall, if there is not enough water to fill them we have far bigger problems than filling reservoirs. I agree walleye can be reduced but what you have put forth is a straw man.
__________________
“One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain.”

Thomas Sowell
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-08-2023, 10:26 PM
fordtruckin's Avatar
fordtruckin fordtruckin is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: In the woods
Posts: 8,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deschambault View Post
I'm not real grateful, just surprised to see a bit of retention finally allowed on the reservoirs southeast of Calgary. I have asked several COs at Crawling Valley, Newell and Travers over the years why there was total catch and release on walleye and none had a scientific based answer. By the way, unless a dam breaks literally I wouldn't expect to see winterkill in reservoirs 50 to 100+ in depth. All of them produce very large fish who have been there a long time. It was just a nice event, actually getting an Alberta walleye to eat without having to wait for a tag.
So who makes the regulations? I doubt it is the COs and would bet it’s the bios so no big surprise that a CO wouldn’t know the reasons behind such things. People appear not to realize that and expect someone who is not involved in season setting and harvest limits etc.. to have an answer.
__________________
I feel I was denied, critical, need to know Information!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-08-2023, 10:46 PM
EZM's Avatar
EZM EZM is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 11,851
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fordtruckin View Post
So who makes the regulations? I doubt it is the COs and would bet it’s the bios so no big surprise that a CO wouldn’t know the reasons behind such things. People appear not to realize that and expect someone who is not involved in season setting and harvest limits etc.. to have an answer.
It's not the CO's who make the regulations. They are there to monitor and protect the resource and nothing else. Neither do the Bios.

Biologists perform the studies that are directed by senior advisors/staff according to resolutions, public consultation (hearings), departmental recommendations and requests from legislators and other interested bodies (like AFGA) for example where they submit resolutions. In any case, the final "list" of what they study (and what they don't) can end up as a recommendation to change limits, seasons, add protections, etc...

Any and All regulation changes to the provincial laws have to be legislated by, you guessed it, the legislators.

So, the government changes the regulations.

The constant blaming the cops or the CO's or the Bio's always makes me laugh. I know you now this in your line of work. It's just worth repeating.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-09-2023, 08:15 AM
fordtruckin's Avatar
fordtruckin fordtruckin is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: In the woods
Posts: 8,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EZM View Post
It's not the CO's who make the regulations. They are there to monitor and protect the resource and nothing else. Neither do the Bios.

Biologists perform the studies that are directed by senior advisors/staff according to resolutions, public consultation (hearings), departmental recommendations and requests from legislators and other interested bodies (like AFGA) for example where they submit resolutions. In any case, the final "list" of what they study (and what they don't) can end up as a recommendation to change limits, seasons, add protections, etc...

Any and All regulation changes to the provincial laws have to be legislated by, you guessed it, the legislators.

So, the government changes the regulations.

The constant blaming the cops or the CO's or the Bio's always makes me laugh. I know you now this in your line of work. It's just worth repeating.
Definitely not how it works down here. Bios for the most part set everything based off their research. Sure there’s public comment and our commission and legislature but that generally doesn’t effect overall harvest numbers. Our season setting is coming up where they discuss numbers of licenses etc.. and my bio rarely if ever ask my opinion.
__________________
I feel I was denied, critical, need to know Information!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-09-2023, 09:07 AM
Big Sky's Avatar
Big Sky Big Sky is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,295
Default

Just a comment on irrigation reservoir water levels.

The farms are going to take what they are allowed and with this year's lack of rainfall I'll bet they will be needing ever drop that they can get.

The Bow River is way lower than it typically is for this time of year. In Calgary, there are exposed gravel bars that we typically wouldn't see until August.

I think that we are going to see some much higher than normal draw downs on the reservoirs this year. I've got my fingers crossed for some rain.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-10-2023, 06:29 AM
wind drift wind drift is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YEG
Posts: 716
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyTheory View Post
Let us remember how the lakes are now, and see what happens when the lakes are fished for keeps after 5 years. Jury is out if we’re living the good old days, or if they’re in the future.

I think a balance should have been reached between AEP and the local anglers, and a general tag system may be the answer. We’ll see, I’m slightly indifferent to the outcome.
That’s a really good point. The nice thing is that we don’t have to rely on memory. The info is here: https://www.alberta.ca/fall-index-ne...px#jumplinks-1
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-10-2023, 08:20 AM
FlyTheory's Avatar
FlyTheory FlyTheory is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wind drift View Post
That’s a really good point. The nice thing is that we don’t have to rely on memory. The info is here: https://www.alberta.ca/fall-index-ne...px#jumplinks-1
Absolutely! But just so people fishing there can rely on their firsthand experience - that’s what I meant
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-10-2023, 08:26 AM
Drewski Canuck Drewski Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,918
Default

Southern Irrigation Reservoirs can obviously support walleye recruitment, and their size and reliable water supply even if only on spring flood, should continue to support successful spawning.

Problem is when water levels have to be dropped to make up flow rates for the watershed, that the reservoirs are attached to, you can get low water and summer kills, and fish die offs.

Alberta is obligated to deliver minimum flow rates to Saskatchewan, so fish retention should be allowed where outside factors could make the reservoir habitat a poor environment for fish survival.

Same thing for all the regular winterkill lakes like Utikima.

Drewski
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-11-2023, 07:19 PM
Big Sky's Avatar
Big Sky Big Sky is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,295
Default

This was the Bow River today in Calgary. This time of year, that gravel bar should be completely covered and it would not be unusual for some of that vegetation to be submerged. The river is very low for this time of year. I'd say the river is 12-18 inches low. I'm not looking forward to what August brings.

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-11-2023, 09:37 PM
Wes_G Wes_G is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,302
Default

We're almost at the middle of June and I haven't even seen run off come down the Oldman. By this time that river is usually ripping pretty good. Untill friday we have had almost zero rainfall, And it only lasted about an hour friday morning and night, not enough to do anything. St Mary's reservoir has only made 70% capacity and was already dropping last week.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-12-2023, 11:47 AM
Walleyedude Walleyedude is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck View Post
The Southern Alberta Reservoirs have some deep sections, but seeing what droughts year after year did to the reservoirs on the Colorado River system, some down over 200 feet, there is no guarantee that 50 FOW will not be lost to irrigation and Alberta's obligation to flow through so many cubic meters of water per minute to Saskatchewan. Yes, this is a thing.

All the same, the walleye limits can be more generous given the impact on everything else when the population of walleye is booming to the detriment of all other species.

When a walleye is over 8 pounds, it has spawned for about 15 years, and has created hundreds of thousands of offspring. As these fish get older, their eggs are less viable, so why not let limited tags for fish in the 28 " plus range? These large fish eventually die, as has been seen in lakes like Pigeon where there were strict tag numbers. The really old fish just died out over time.

That big fish has done its job spawning, and when dead on the bottom of the lake, has been lost for the fisherman to utilize when it naturally dies off.

So why not tags for big fish at the end of their spawning life?

Drewski
My first question would be, why would you want to eat that 25 yr old 8lb+ walleye?

My second question would be, at what point is that prolific spawner no longer considered viable, or capable of 2-3 times the spawning potential of smaller or immature fish? How do you make that call as an angler? Why would you want to?

My third question would be, why would you want to deprive someone else of the opportunity to harvest a trophy fish like that? Anglers complain about the lack of big fish or trophy fish in AB waters, but then want to introduce a limit or a tag for harvesting those big fish? With the "logic" being that it's going to die anyway, so it might as well be today? Makes no sense to me...
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-12-2023, 11:56 AM
Walleyedude Walleyedude is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck View Post
You do not have to be thankful for the privilege of eating a walleye, you have to ask why it has taken so long.

There is an ideology with the Fisheries Biologists that Walleye are not to be eaten. If they wish to dispute this, then they can please explain why it took a Wildrose MLA to organize Town Hall Meetings in Bonnyville and St. Paul to get lakes that had been closed for 20 years to finally be opened to walleye retention.

The lakes from all index netting were very abundant with walleye to the point where there were few perch or pike.

The Bios explained that they wanted representation from at least 5 year classes, or some garbage story like that. From sizes ranging from 6" to 8 Pds, the criteria was met from fisherman experience.

Wildrose sold alot of memberships at those Town Hall meetings as finally someone stood up to the Buerocrats.

Most of the large Southern Reservoirs are for irrigation, not fishing, and can be drawn down to the point where the fish will winterkill. Because of that reality, the limits should be very generous, as the resource is not permanent.

Drewski
I don't disagree with some retention and harvest. That said, I'll admit to being very reluctant to open that Pandora's Box, because I can see things going very wrong, very fast,. However, if done within reason, based on sound data, and with sufficient enforcement, I think it's a good thing, and will be sustainable.

Where I strongly disagree is your suggestion that because there's a chance, a very SMALL chance, that the walleye population may be affected in the future, that it justifies significantly affecting it today. That logic simply doesn't add up for me, and I could provide dozens of analogies to show how faulty it is.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-19-2023, 08:13 PM
PerchBuster PerchBuster is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck View Post
The Southern Alberta Reservoirs have some deep sections, but seeing what droughts year after year did to the reservoirs on the Colorado River system, some down over 200 feet, there is no guarantee that 50 FOW will not be lost to irrigation and Alberta's obligation to flow through so many cubic meters of water per minute to Saskatchewan. Yes, this is a thing.

All the same, the walleye limits can be more generous given the impact on everything else when the population of walleye is booming to the detriment of all other species.

When a walleye is over 8 pounds, it has spawned for about 15 years, and has created hundreds of thousands of offspring. As these fish get older, their eggs are less viable, so why not let limited tags for fish in the 28 " plus range? These large fish eventually die, as has been seen in lakes like Pigeon where there were strict tag numbers. The really old fish just died out over time.

That big fish has done its job spawning, and when dead on the bottom of the lake, has been lost for the fisherman to utilize when it naturally dies off.

So why not tags for big fish at the end of their spawning life?

Drewski

Give this a quick read and see if you still feel the same way. Smaller ones are better table fare imo anyway but to each their own. Those large females may be a lot more vital to the resource than we’ve been lead to believe by our CO’s

https://www.outdoorcanada.ca/why-you...ease-big-fish/
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-19-2023, 09:01 PM
Walleyedude Walleyedude is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walleyedude View Post
My first question would be, why would you want to eat that 25 yr old 8lb+ walleye?

My second question would be, at what point is that prolific spawner no longer considered viable, or capable of 2-3 times the spawning potential of smaller or immature fish? How do you make that call as an angler? Why would you want to?

My third question would be, why would you want to deprive someone else of the opportunity to catch and release a trophy fish like that? Anglers complain about the lack of big fish or trophy fish in AB waters, but then want to introduce a limit or a tag for harvesting those big fish? With the "logic" being that it's going to die anyway, so it might as well be today? Makes no sense to me...
I edited this, reading it again, it wasn't saying what I wanted it to say lol. I don't want those big fish being "harvested".
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-20-2023, 07:38 AM
I’d rather be outdoors I’d rather be outdoors is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 877
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walleyedude View Post
I edited this, reading it again, it wasn't saying what I wanted it to say lol. I don't want those big fish being "harvested".
If concerned, why not advocate for stocking of minnows/trout as prey? Seems to keep recruitment up in PC.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-20-2023, 08:13 AM
Walleyedude Walleyedude is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I’d rather be outdoors View Post
If concerned, why not advocate for stocking of minnows/trout as prey? Seems to keep recruitment up in PC.
I don't think that's the answer in most cases, if a fish population has to be maintained by artificially supplementing the forage base, I'm not sure that's a viable strategy in the long term. In the case of PC though, as long as they keep dumping trout into it, it very well might turn out that way.

For the record - I was strongly opposed to the plan to convert PC into a trout lake by attempting to kill off the pike and walleye. I used to really enjoy the walleye fishing there, and by the sounds of it, it might be worth revisiting at some point. Which is a miracle, because according to the pro trout crowd, every walleye in the lake should be dead of old age by now...
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-20-2023, 03:16 PM
pinelakeperch's Avatar
pinelakeperch pinelakeperch is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Alberta
Posts: 2,444
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walleyedude View Post
My first question would be, why would you want to eat that 25 yr old 8lb+ walleye?

My second question would be, at what point is that prolific spawner no longer considered viable, or capable of 2-3 times the spawning potential of smaller or immature fish? How do you make that call as an angler? Why would you want to?

My third question would be, why would you want to deprive someone else of the opportunity to harvest a trophy fish like that? Anglers complain about the lack of big fish or trophy fish in AB waters, but then want to introduce a limit or a tag for harvesting those big fish? With the "logic" being that it's going to die anyway, so it might as well be today? Makes no sense to me...
Doesn't make sense to me either. I've never looked at a trophy walleye and thought, "Wow, I'd like to take this fish home to eat." They taste worse than smaller fish, and as you say, deprive someone else of the opportunity to catch them.

I'm surprised that this isn't something that there is nearly 100% agreement on.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-20-2023, 04:30 PM
pikergolf's Avatar
pikergolf pikergolf is online now
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11,286
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck View Post
Southern Irrigation Reservoirs can obviously support walleye recruitment, and their size and reliable water supply even if only on spring flood, should continue to support successful spawning.

Problem is when water levels have to be dropped to make up flow rates for the watershed, that the reservoirs are attached to, you can get low water and summer kills, and fish die offs.

Alberta is obligated to deliver minimum flow rates to Saskatchewan, so fish retention should be allowed where outside factors could make the reservoir habitat a poor environment for fish survival.

Same thing for all the regular winterkill lakes like Utikima.

Drewski
I have never heard of a summer kill of walleye in a southern reservoir. Perhaps you can point one out?
__________________
“One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain.”

Thomas Sowell
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-20-2023, 05:30 PM
I’d rather be outdoors I’d rather be outdoors is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 877
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walleyedude View Post
I don't think that's the answer in most cases, if a fish population has to be maintained by artificially supplementing the forage base, I'm not sure that's a viable strategy in the long term. In the case of PC though, as long as they keep dumping trout into it, it very well might turn out that way.

For the record - I was strongly opposed to the plan to convert PC into a trout lake by attempting to kill off the pike and walleye. I used to really enjoy the walleye fishing there, and by the sounds of it, it might be worth revisiting at some point. Which is a miracle, because according to the pro trout crowd, every walleye in the lake should be dead of old age by now...
We agree on some things except on the point of stocking. If lakes weren’t stocked at all, we would have probably been a fishless province long ago. I personally believe they should stock trout (as a forage base), in other walleye reservoirs too as a test.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-20-2023, 05:59 PM
EZM's Avatar
EZM EZM is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 11,851
Default

Big (old) fish are not typically great eaters, they are, however, great spawners laying a higher number of eggs and also, even in their last years, more viable eggs.

Harvest, in my opinion, should be based on populations against age class - where there is a surplus, it can reasonably sustain higher harvest numbers. It may seem simple, but it is, in fact a proven model for sustainable retention.

Lots of science to this that should be left to scientists - scientists who can benchmark against other successful programs is the key.
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 08:33 AM.


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