Walleye Draw and Undersubscribed

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Trying to stay out of these threads and leave to others. But.

Without the put and take trout, fishing pressure would be worse than it already is and all that would do is impact native species. Trout are easier, cheaper to raise and stock. Guess they should scrap the Tiger Trout, now thats a waste.

Guess what Im trying to say is the Trout stocking programs serve a need and purpose.

I agree. But managing a put and take lake where no taking is involved kind of defeats it's purpose. The people who like to take fish home will still be pressuring the other lakes that allow retention. Put and take lakes are great for old people, kids, and Sunday family outings.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by RavYak

No, I am debating. You argued tag lakes like Pigeon were set to tags because they tried 1 fish limits and it didn't work... I don't believe that was ever the case with Pigeon. I believe it was recovered then went straight to tags. Tags work but I believe a 1 over 50 cm would work as well(would need to be implemented over a few years using tags only on the large fish and removing tags for B's and C's to let those populations take over instead of the A's). The average size might go down 1-2 inches but we wouldn't have to worry about the tag program costs or extra work etc. Do a 1 over 55 cm and it wouldn't hurt 95% of the population in there...

Regarding NB1. Half those lakes are closed or tags already... For example Spencer lake I know has been getting absolutely pounded, why? Because Pinehurst is tags, Siebert is bait ban, Lac La Biche is c&r. The list goes on... NB1 is an example of the opposite of my system and still they left higher limits on a lot of these lakes until recently... The lakes closer to Edmonton also have a huge effect on these NB1 lakes, a lot of the guys fishing these NB1 lakes drive out there because there is nowhere close for them to fish and keep walleye... You don't understand how I can't see this because you don't understand what I am saying needs to happen in order to prove my system wouldn't work. You can't have only a 1/4 of the NB1 lakes open and only 10% of the PP2 lakes open and think that it represents my system where every lake(except maybe the most extreme ones that need to be recovered still) needs to be open in order to balance the fishing pressure...

Also a lot of those lakes have and are affected also by netting and poaching. That is what ultimately hurts a lake with say a 1 fish over 50 cm limit(or even 2 or 3). The lakes will never fish themselves out(although some catch and release mortality) as can be seen at Buck. The only way a lake could be significantly hurt by such a reg is if it were implemented on a tag/c&r lake like say Pigeon where the average population prior to that regulation is larger then the 50 cm size(and hence why I said they would have to convert Pigeon slowly).



Yeah recovery is soo difficult... Putting a lake as catch and release and perhaps stocking it is a pretty obvious way to recover lakes but I guess I need to commend them for doing so... It's how they manage the lakes that they have already recovered that now bothers me.

Clarify, you brought up Pigeon on your own. I never mentioned it the way you have. You always, I repeat always do this - putting words in others mouths. Not sure why....

My point about NB1 was that limits where slowly reduced...and still continuing for some remaining lakes and tags are now coming. So, how does your one fish limit for every lake fix this...magically??? Of course not, you simply C&R and restock it...takes care of itself right? NOT!!! You will just repeat previous history.

Not to bring in another person too much but EZM hit the mail on the head that you manage water sheds and areas. That is what they do today.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by RavYak

I look forward to coming back here because the fishing is better close to Edmonton then it is close to where my family lives in SK...

So, they are doing a bad job here hey? Do you have any other feet left to shoot...you must be 100 legged or something.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

I agree. But managing a put and take lake where no taking is involved kind of defeats it's purpose. The people who like to take fish home will still be pressuring the other lakes that allow retention. Put and take lakes are great for old people, kids, and Sunday family outings.

It might defeat the taking purpose but it doesn't defeat the fishing purpose... These lakes are stocked for fishermen enjoyment. Some get that enjoyment by taking a 10 inch trout home but MANY of us get our enjoyment from catching quality fish.

This is what I live for and each one of these fish is worth a 1000 new stockers in my mind...

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by RavYak

It might defeat the taking purpose but it doesn't defeat the fishing purpose... These lakes are stocked for fishermen enjoyment. Some get that enjoyment by taking a 10 inch trout home but MANY of us get our enjoyment from catching quality fish.

This is what I live for and each one of these fish is worth a 1000 new stockers in my mind...

Nice fish. That one rainbow even looks like it came from its natural environment!!!

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Nice fish. That one rainbow even looks like it came from its natural environment!!!

There are many lakes that are capable of raising trout like the above ones but we choose to hamper their ability to survive with stupid regulations or poor stocking practices...

From what I hear biologists got some strips tore off them at the last trout club meeting. Hopefully they will begin to wake up and realize the demand there is for fish like this but based on what I heard it doesn't seem like that will be the case...

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Clarify, you brought up Pigeon on your own. I never mentioned it the way you have. You always, I repeat always do this - putting words in others mouths. Not sure why....

I was reading in between the lines on the following...

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

I won't bother quoting your post because it is long, drawn out and says nothing. I suppose when a 1 fish limit is put on lakes and the ones that can't sustain it, *cough* Pigeon *cough* you'll complain that they should have done something about it.

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

So when you say province-wide or 1 fish limit, it only works in certain places like it is today. The ones where it doesn't they are trying tags to be able to allow a selected harvest of a selected size.

I guess what you mean is that you ASSUME a 1 fish limit wouldn't work on Pigeon and that your second comment had nothing to do with Pigeon particularly(although you claim tag lakes were ones that previously could not support a 1 fish limit)...

I was just interpreting your words and didn't realize there were unwritten assumptions in both cases.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by RavYak

There are many lakes that are capable of raising trout like the above ones but we choose to hamper their ability to survive with stupid regulations or poor stocking practices...

From what I hear biologists got some strips tore off them at the last trout club meeting. Hopefully they will begin to wake up and realize the demand there is for fish like this but based on what I heard it doesn't seem like that will be the case...

I can put a rainbow in my dugout, toss dog food at it for a few years, pull out my rod and catch it. I get 0 satisfaction from it though. Each to their own.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

I can put a rainbow in my dugout, toss dog food at it for a few years, pull out my rod and catch it. I get 0 satisfaction from it though. Each to their own.

I don't fish dugouts... Too many nice trout lakes to go to rather then go fish a dugout/slough...

How is a stocked walleye(or fry of a stocked walleye) at Pigeon any different? Do you not realize that trout populations can also be sustaining?

Look no farther then the golden trout lakes for an example. Rainy Ridge is a self sustaining population used to stock the other golden trout lakes...

Most trout lakes are not sustaining just because of the low quality water bodies they are stocked in... It has nothing to do with being an inferior species...

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by RavYak

I don't fish dugouts... Too many nice trout lakes to go to rather then go fish a dugout/slough...

How is a stocked walleye(or fry of a stocked walleye) at Pigeon any different? Do you not realize that trout populations can also be sustaining?

Look no farther then the golden trout lakes for an example. Rainy Ridge is a self sustaining population used to stock the other golden trout lakes...

Most trout lakes are not sustaining just because of the low quality water bodies they are stocked in... It has nothing to do with being an inferior species...

Well, stocked walleye at pigeon are different since you asked because they are native to that water body. All the lakes east of the foothills do not hold or ever did hold naturally occurring populations of trout.
Who said it was an inferior species? Not me. Catching athabows in the the headwaters is second to none.
I'm more into native fisheries and natural settings for my enjoyment. That's where we differ. I am not right. And neither are you. Just different appeals. Get over it and move on.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by RavYak

I was reading in between the lines on the following...





I guess what you mean is that you ASSUME a 1 fish limit wouldn't work on Pigeon and that your second comment had nothing to do with Pigeon particularly(although you claim tag lakes were ones that previously could not support a 1 fish limit)...

I was just interpreting your words and didn't realize there were unwritten assumptions in both cases.

Fair enough. And, I think you got it now. So we can agree to disagree

[millsboy79]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Nice fish. That one rainbow even looks like it came from its natural environment!!!

Assuming by this comment stocked fish here do not have their adipose fin clipped? Pretty sure back east they used to clip them off so you knew when you caught a stocked fish.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by RavYak

Unless I missed it I don't think anyone has compared AB to SK.

SK is a very different situation with limits of 4 and no size limits on many of their lakes. They also rely on stocking to keep populations healthy.

Also they have tons of lakes and great fishing but coming from SK one thing that most Albertans don't think of is that most of those lakes are in the far north where the major of populations do not frequent. Go try fishing the smaller lakes and reservoirs in southern SK. There are no more lakes there then there are here and a lot of them actually see significant pressure especially when you take into account the significant limit effect(when boats there are taking 6-12 fish home in a day vs 1-2 or none here).

Many of these lakes are much more difficult fisheries then some of our walleye lakes here and the size averages on most of them are way down as well and a guy primarily keeps c tag size fish from many of these lakes.

I am from SK and visit every year. I look forward to coming back here because the fishing is better close to Edmonton then it is close to where my family lives in SK... But I do get nice walleye feeds so it makes the extra work worthwhile!

The Alberta to Sask comparison was a general comment that we have all seen on many threads and it was more of a commentary ....... and not directed at anyone here specifically.

My main point is Alberta is a very tough place to be successful as a Biologist.

Too little water, too much pressure compare to other provinces (like Sask).

This leave very little room for error in over/under stocking or over/under harvest.

That's why it's going to be nearly impossible for us to be happy with all the policies, systems used in management and harvest (closures, tags, retention limits) etc... ultimately resulting in our province's Bios getting a bad rap.

I'm disappointed in a few watersheds for sure - but I also understand why we got into this mess. 15 years ago we were screaming "more walleye!!!!!" ..... so fast forward to now and we are saying "walleye are overpopulating and overrunning the lakes !!!!!" - so it's pretty tough to please everyone while trying to maintain a healthy lake, balanced with opportunity UNDERPINNED by the complexity and variability from one watershed to the next without the resources to properly study, implement, adjust and manage each watershed when you are under resourced and underfunded.

Of course - this example applies to a few lakes, while, to the contrary, other lakes have had their walleye populations decimated.

The only solution is more resources and more funding in my opinion. We as sportsmen should be willing to support this through higher license costs OR suggesting changes to the provincial budgets (and the allocations and appropriation schedules).

[Mitchthefisher]

Originally Posted by RavYak

Or more obviously you haven't caught a big trout(lakers aren't the same)...

Catch a 25+ inch rainbow/brown trout. Drag screaming, fish jumping action and beautiful colours. There isn't a fish in AB that fights as hard or fun as a 10 lb trout. A walleye imitating a log definitely doesn't compare, you are right though maybe I need to start using ultralight equipment for walleye so that it feels like a good fight... Or I could just use my regular gear crank them in to stress them less and then throw them back...

Yes the trout fishery here is limited but that is just because it is poorly managed like so many of our other lakes... With proper management there would be multiple trophy trout lakes and still many other put and take lakes. Not every trout lake needs to be a put and take lake although that seems to be fisheries stance...

I have caught multiple rainbows around 10lbs and think sturgeon fight harder even with using heavier gear. Sturgeon on a trout rod would be insane lol.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by Mitchthefisher

I have caught multiple rainbows around 10lbs and think sturgeon fight harder even with using heavier gear. Sturgeon on a trout rod would be insane lol.

Show off!

[morgan]

Originally Posted by binnzer32

You do know I am from Ontario eh. .. where we have huge natural reproducing rainbows that make your skinny 30 inch trout look like a bait fish. .. My best is 18.5lbs.... what's yours? Ours are not stocked and kept in a small lake either. I would think with the amount of time you fish you should have every record in the book. It's really too bad you don't put as much effort into looking for a job rather than the effort to start arguments on AO
The harsh reality is you don't really know jack sh** and have fished for like 5 years.

Yes, we all know everything is better in Ontario....

Where do you think those 18lb rainbow trout originated from?
To my knowledge the only naturaly occuring rainbows east of the Rockies are Athabasca Strain..
Every other Rainbow trout is from the west side of the Rockies...
So your rainbows were originally stocked in lakes containing pike, walleye, brook trout, ect....


I know youse guyse call them steelhead in Ontario, but they never go to salt water, and really are not steelhead, just introduced rainbows, using a stream that previously held suckers and eastern brookies, to spawn.
Worked out pretty good, didn't it...

[morgan]

Originally Posted by Mitchthefisher

I have caught multiple rainbows around 10lbs and think sturgeon fight harder even with using heavier gear. Sturgeon on a trout rod would be insane lol.

10lb Bow vs 10lb lake sturgeon,

The rainbow is gonna school that sturgeon.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by RavYak

I don't fish dugouts... Too many nice trout lakes to go to rather then go fish a dugout/slough...

How is a stocked walleye(or fry of a stocked walleye) at Pigeon any different? Do you not realize that trout populations can also be sustaining?

Look no farther then the golden trout lakes for an example. Rainy Ridge is a self sustaining population used to stock the other golden trout lakes...

Most trout lakes are not sustaining just because of the low quality water bodies they are stocked in... It has nothing to do with being an inferior species...

Not all fish in the mountains or foot hills. The stocked ponds and reservoirs (sloughs to some) on here also serve a purpose. Most down south here get heavily fished. And most ponds and small lakes with stocked trout are not self sustaining.
I agree not an inferior species, but they work out well in small ponds and lakes. But it doe allow for more fishing opportunities.

I also support quality fisheries, it is nice and important to have a few of them around as well.

[morgan]

Originally Posted by binnzer32

You do know I am from Ontario eh. .. where we have huge natural reproducing rainbows that make your skinny 30 inch trout look like a bait fish. .. My best is 18.5lbs.... what's yours? Ours are not stocked and kept in a small lake either. I would think with the amount of time you fish you should have every record in the book. It's really too bad you don't put as much effort into looking for a job rather than the effort to start arguments on AO
The harsh reality is you don't really know jack sh** and have fished for like 5 years.

And I am quite surprised/taken back that you would say to someone that they know nothing about fishing, as if you are an expert. A sort of all knowing god of trout.
Even if the only native/natural trout in your home waters is the half retarded eastern brook trout..

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by morgan

the half retarded eastern brook trout..

One of the funniest things I've heard on the fishing section.... Lol

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by morgan

And I am quite surprised/taken back that you would say to someone that they know nothing about fishing, as if you are an expert. A sort of all knowing god of trout.
Even if the only native/natural trout in your home waters is the half retarded eastern brook trout..

Just ignore him and he will go back to his cave, or if we are lucky maybe back to Ontario or Lake Athabasca if those are the only places worth fishing in his mind...

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by RavYak

Just ignore him and he will go back to his cave, or if we are lucky maybe back to Ontario or Lake Athabasca if those are the only places worth fishing in his mind...

You guys may be able to ignore him but he stepped over a line I had drawn that the rest of you were basically adhering to in this thread.

There have been lot of opinions, some good , some questionable, but the thread has been informative and very civil .

I want to than those of yo w have kept it going that way.
Cat

[mickeyjim]

Originally Posted by EZM

The Alberta to Sask comparison was a general comment that we have all seen on many threads and it was more of a commentary ....... and not directed at anyone here specifically.

My main point is Alberta is a very tough place to be successful as a Biologist.

Too little water, too much pressure compare to other provinces (like Sask).

This leave very little room for error in over/under stocking or over/under harvest.

That's why it's going to be nearly impossible for us to be happy with all the policies, systems used in management and harvest (closures, tags, retention limits) etc... ultimately resulting in our province's Bios getting a bad rap.

I'm disappointed in a few watersheds for sure - but I also understand why we got into this mess. 15 years ago we were screaming "more walleye!!!!!" ..... so fast forward to now and we are saying "walleye are overpopulating and overrunning the lakes !!!!!" - so it's pretty tough to please everyone while trying to maintain a healthy lake, balanced with opportunity UNDERPINNED by the complexity and variability from one watershed to the next without the resources to properly study, implement, adjust and manage each watershed when you are under resourced and underfunded.

Of course - this example applies to a few lakes, while, to the contrary, other lakes have had their walleye populations decimated.

The only solution is more resources and more funding in my opinion. We as sportsmen should be willing to support this through higher license costs OR suggesting changes to the provincial budgets (and the allocations and appropriation schedules).

More funding? How many people bought into the walleye draw this year? Where did that money go? I think at the very least all proceeds of that should go directly to walleye stocking efforts, of which there were none this year


Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

[EZM]

Originally Posted by mickeyjim

More funding? How many people bought into the walleye draw this year? Where did that money go? I think at the very least all proceeds of that should go directly to walleye stocking efforts, of which there were none this year


Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

I agree completely with your thoughts there ....

Exactly why I put in the last sentence - allocations and appropriations. It makes no sense to me that some or all of this money would go into a general fund (as I believe this is the case today).

I would be curious to see what money is generated (in aggregate as a total) by all fishermen and compare it to what is spent to support fisheries and habitats for fishing.

[mickeyjim]

Originally Posted by EZM

I agree completely with your thoughts there ....

Exactly why I put in the last sentence - allocations and appropriations. It makes no sense to me that some or all of this money would go into a general fund (as I believe this is the case today).

I would be curious to see what money is generated (in aggregate as a total) by all fishermen and compare it to what is spent to support fisheries and habitats for fishing.

Haha I bet you don't!

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk