Walleye Draw and Undersubscribed

[millsboy79]

Being the first year getting back into fishing here in Alberta I have been reading almost everything posted in this forum so when the thread started with the release of the draw information for Walleye fishing this year I was obviously curious.

So what I have gathered is that you have to pay just to put your name in for the chance of keeping some, with no guarantee that you will get your name called. Not only that you have to choose what size fish you will keep as well ... so if I chose a class B and caught a tank I would have to release it.

I have no idea what the priority for the next year means ... but a guess would be that if you did not get your tag this year you have a "better" chance of getting one next year?

Now today I have gotten an email talking about the undersubscribed applications for a couple lakes that did not sell out their set amount of licenses (I assume) but it does not say anything in the email about class.

Does that mean that with an undersubscribed tag you can keep whatever you catch (to the limit) or does it mean you wont know what class you can get till you actually get to the "store" and buy one?

I am curious to know the idea behind the classes ... I guess thinking logically someone could pay for a tag and never catch the size requirement to fill that tag there for releasing every fish they caught, and over all slightly limiting the number of total fish being kept from the lake, but I would also think the same thing would be accomplished by just lowering the total number of tags.

Either way it seems like a fairly convoluted task to be able to cook up a couple little fishies ... I am assuming they are some tasty or people wouldn't kick up a fuss when they did not get their tags for the year.

I look forward to catching my first walleye (even though I need to release it) perhaps I will learn what what I can and try for tags another season but it also seems like the lakes for retaining walleye are pretty limited in the south.

Look forward to hearing what everyone has to say ... I enjoy the sharing of knowledge here (except for fishing spots of course)

[RavYak]

There are 3 classes of tags.

Class A: 50+ cm, you get 2 tags(2 fish)
Class B: 43-50 cm, you get 3 tags
Class C: Under 43 cm, you get 3 tags

In order to get tags you pay to enter the draw. I haven't done so so I don't know the particulars down pat regarding the priorities but ultimately you put in what lakes and classes you hope to get.

If you get drawn for a lake you get the tags. If not you get nothing.

If there are not enough entrants into the draw system then there is undersubscribed tags available(for example if there is 400 class C tags for Pigeon but only 200 people had Pigeon Class C as a tag choice then there would be 200 undersubscribed class C tags available.

You can purchase undersubscribed tags directly(no draw bs). Unfortunately this year(and probably from now on) only class C undersubscribed tags are available.

[millsboy79]

Originally Posted by RavYak

There are 3 classes of tags.

Class A: 50+ cm, you get 2 tags(2 fish)
Class B: 43-50 cm, you get 3 tags
Class C: Under 43 cm, you get 3 tags

In order to get tags you pay to enter the draw. I haven't done so so I don't know the particulars down pat regarding the priorities but ultimately you put in what lakes and classes you hope to get.

If you get drawn for a lake you get the tags. If not you get nothing.

If there are not enough entrants into the draw system then there is undersubscribed tags available(for example if there is 400 class C tags for Pigeon but only 200 people had Pigeon Class C as a tag choice then there would be 200 undersubscribed class C tags available.

You can purchase undersubscribed tags directly(no draw bs). Unfortunately this year(and probably from now on) only class C undersubscribed tags are available.

I got a lot of that info from the walleye pamphlet ... except for the class c for the undersubscribed I didn't see that info anywhere.

It doesn't seem like you can even try for two different sizes in the same lake either ... you only have one draw choice but three lake choices. (Least that's what it looks like when filling out the form)

[Vigsy]

Originally Posted by millsboy79

I got a lot of that info from the walleye pamphlet ... except for the class c for the undersubscribed I didn't see that info anywhere.

It doesn't seem like you can even try for two different sizes in the same lake either ... you only have one draw choice but three lake choices. (Least that's what it looks like when filling out the form)

you would enter the draw twice once for each size. as I did for the lake I wanted. Applied separately for Class a and class b. Can only be awarded one of the licenses though. I got Denied on both so picked up undersubscribed today.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by millsboy79

I got a lot of that info from the walleye pamphlet ... except for the class c for the undersubscribed I didn't see that info anywhere.

It doesn't seem like you can even try for two different sizes in the same lake either ... you only have one draw choice but three lake choices. (Least that's what it looks like when filling out the form)

Just looking at the brochure it says the following.

An Alberta resident may apply for each different-sized class of Special Walleye Licence, but may possess only 1 of
these licences.
The Walleye (Class A) draw will be conducted first, then the Walleye (Class B) draw followed by the Walleye (Class C)
draw. Applicants drawn in a walleye draw will be eliminated from the subsequent draws.

Looking at their application sheet it does appear to be by a certain size though. I assume they require you to fill out multiple applications for the sizes you want and charge you for each one even though they only allow you to potentially win one of them...

Regarding the priority it appears that if you are not picked your chances do somehow improve the next round(not sure in what way as it doesn't explain it). New entrants and previous entrants have the same priority. Groups have priority equal to the person with lowest priority(so if they have a new or previous winner the whole group will have the lowest priority(0) so if you haven't been picked for a few years don't keep applying in groups with people that have been previously picked or are new entrants).

Maybe someone can correct me if I am wrong on either of those interpretations but I believe that is how it would work based on what I am seeing.

[millsboy79]

Originally Posted by Vigsy

you would enter the draw twice once for each size. as I did for the lake I wanted. Applied separately for Class a and class b. Can only be awarded one of the licenses though. I got Denied on both so picked up undersubscribed today.

Did you have to pay for both attempts (a and b)?

[deanna]

can u buy undersubscribed tags online. I have'nt been able to figure it out

[cube]

Originally Posted by millsboy79

Did you have to pay for both attempts (a and b)?

Yes you would have to pay for each class you would like to attempt.

That would be potentially $3.75 For A + $3.75 For B + $3.75 For C

A tags are drawn first then B then C. Once you have been drawn they remove your name from all subsequent drawing that year. So if you really want B tags don't put in for A because if you get drawn for A you will become ineligible for B and C.

[cube]

Originally Posted by deanna

can u buy undersubscribed tags online. I have'nt been able to figure it out

Yes you can. Might be the easiest if you call the help line RELM Help Desk 1-888-944-5494 as they will walk you through it.

First step in reserving you undersubscribed C tags. This costs 3.35.

Then you can pickup the tags or have them mailed to you. Once you know the tag numbers you can go online and pay to have the tags activated.

http://www.mywildalberta.com/BuyLice...tLicences.aspx

[millsboy79]

Originally Posted by cube

Yes you would have to pay for each class you would like to attempt.

That would be potentially $3.75 For A + $3.75 For B + $3.75 For C

A tags are drawn first then B then C. Once you have been drawn they remove your name from all subsequent drawing that year. So if you really want B tags don't put in for A because if you get drawn for A you will become ineligible for B and C.

So there is no way to have class A as your second choice? ... unless it was undersubscribed that is i guess.

I will stick with catch and release for now ... especially since pigeon is further away than I would like to go to fish from shore.

[RavYak]

This is something I didn't realize either(that you have to put in a draw for each size). Just another reason for me not to support this program.

I will spend the extra money to drive up to Slave or out to SK etc for a walleye before I support this draw.

[Dragless]

Screw off with this size class I'll be throwing my tags in the trash! keep the 3.75 stock a trout in lake for me thx😊

[Vigsy]

Originally Posted by Dragless

Screw off with this size class I'll be throwing my tags in the trash! keep the 3.75 stock a trout in lake for me thx��

take a breather pal. you one of those guys that likes to keep the biggest fish he can? 17" is a perfect eater that's most other provinces slot limit size. you people are all a bunch of whiners. " I wont support this draw" "screw the sizes" blah blah blah cause you all know better then the people in charge. Take stuff for what it is and quit complaining all the time.

[MathewsArcher]

^Agreed, when the other option is to close the lake to retention the draw allows some harvest to take place. To many fisherman, not enough water and a unique solution to limit harvest.

[idaman]

Originally Posted by RavYak

This is something I didn't realize either(that you have to put in a draw for each size). Just another reason for me not to support this program.

I will spend the extra money to drive up to Slave or out to SK etc for a walleye before I support this draw.

You don't need to put in for each size....

[millsboy79]

Originally Posted by idaman

You don't need to put in for each size....

No one said you NEEDED to, they are saying that you would need to play each time you WANTED to ... Meaning class A and B for the same lake would cost more than try for class B in two different lakes.

[Dragless]

Originally Posted by Vigsy

take a breather pal. you one of those guys that likes to keep the biggest fish he can? 17" is a perfect eater that's most other provinces slot limit size. you people are all a bunch of whiners. " I wont support this draw" "screw the sizes" blah blah blah cause you all know better then the people in charge. Take stuff for what it is and quit complaining all the time.

No I agree it's a good eater size but it's pretty hard to catch em that small and under since the walleyed are massive and plentiful do to the tag system ..... My friend fished smoke lake around ten times this winter each time he caught over thirty fish he was only able to fill one of his c class tags ..... Screw off with THIS slot size ! that's usually the smallest size you can keep not the biggest. I just began keeping fish this winter from slave lake I applied for the tags to hopefully save me a small drive this winter ,I am primarily a c&r fly fishermen .

[millsboy79]

Originally Posted by Dragless

No I agree it's a good eater size but it's pretty hard to catch em that small and under since the walleyed are massive and plentiful do to the tag system ..... My friend fished smoke lake around ten times this winter each time he caught over thirty fish he was only able to fill one of his c class tags ..... Screw off with THIS slot size ! that's usually the smallest size you can keep not the biggest. I just began keeping fish this winter from slave lake I applied for the tags to hopefully save me a small drive this winter ,I am primarily a c&r fly fishermen .

I was reading this before you posted this reply ... think you should read it as well or tell us all where all these huge walleyes can be found.



https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sourc...NBfcN2YpIE-mbQ

[catnthehat]

I got drawn two years ago for "c" didn't get drawn last year but got "B" this year
It's sll good as far as I am concerned .
Didn't stop me from fishing lakes and rivers where I could keep fish , and I didn't fish any less on my " home " lake , I just released them all .
Cat

[Dragless]

Smoke and Ioesgun buddy caught a 5lber this winter most were of the 20-24 inch range ok not huge but not a bad average size

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by Vigsy

take a breather pal. you one of those guys that likes to keep the biggest fish he can? 17" is a perfect eater that's most other provinces slot limit size. you people are all a bunch of whiners. " I wont support this draw" "screw the sizes" blah blah blah cause you all know better then the people in charge. Take stuff for what it is and quit complaining all the time.

My problem with class c is they are hard to fill on some of these lakes especially if you are going to be picky and try to get ones near 43 cm limit.

I just don't like the draw system because I think it is unnecessary. Just like the southern lakes now they never had reduced limits on most of these lakes they went from higher limits to closed to tags. Nowadays most of the tag lakes are overrun with walleye and there are multiple other lakes closed to walleye fishing even though they have very healthy populations.

You can't try to tell me having a limit of 1 on each of these lakes or doing a max fish per year type system like some other places do for certain fish(bc for steelhead, la ronge for lakers as examples) wouldn't work because neither system has been tried. The current system does work but I just choose note to support it for the above reasons and because there are still lakes where it is easy enough to get a walleye fill if you want one.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by RavYak

My problem with class c is they are hard to fill on some of these lakes especially if you are going to be picky and try to get ones near 43 cm limit.

I just don't like the draw system because I think it is unnecessary. Just like the southern lakes now they never had reduced limits on most of these lakes they went from higher limits to closed to tags. Nowadays most of the tag lakes are overrun with walleye and there are multiple other lakes closed to walleye fishing even though they have very healthy populations.

You can't try to tell me having a limit of 1 on each of these lakes or doing a max fish per year type system like some other places do for certain fish(bc for steelhead, la ronge for lakers as examples) wouldn't work because neither system has been tried. The current system does work but I just choose note to support it for the above reasons and because there are still lakes where it is easy enough to get a walleye fill if you want one.

This is not B.C. or Sask. Do some research on number of anglers per KM for
Alberta and compare to these provinces. It is night and day with Alberta averaging 100 times the anglers. These same arguments are brought up every year. I think everyone would prefer not to buy or use tags but they are trying to limit "in season" not for a season limits. Some might recall the experience of a 1 fish per day limit on certain lakes was a fail. So tags were created to try to limit in season for the lakes that could sustain it.

RY, with all your posting on this subject and not wanting to participate or agree, fine. You don't have to keep posting about it. Weird thing is you were asking earlier about under scribed tags...but you don't support tags...not on the fence at all huh...
At least have the conviction to not participate at all if you don't agree with it, and, hopefully leave it alone for those that are fine with it.

[MathewsArcher]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

This is not B.C. or Sask. Do some research on number of anglers per KM for
Alberta and compare to these provinces. It is night and day with Alberta averaging 100 times the anglers. These same arguments are brought up every year. I think everyone would prefer not to buy or use tags but they are trying to limit "in season" not for a season limits. Some might recall the experience of a 1 fish per day limit on certain lakes was a fail. So tags were created to try to limit in season for the lakes that could sustain it.

RY, with all your posting on this subject and not wanting to participate or agree, fine. You don't have to keep posting about it. Weird thing is you were asking earlier about under scribed tags...but you don't support tags...not on the fence at all huh...
At least have the conviction to not participate at all if you don't agree with it, and, hopefully leave it alone for those that are fine with it.

X2 the same method of sampling (FWIN netting) and modelling is used across Canada and the numbers seem to show that most of our southern and central waterbodies just can't handle the harvest with even a one fish limit. Most of the FWIn reports can be found online if one chooses to read them.

[RavYak]

You can't argue the systems wouldn't work when they have never been tried... AB went from high limits to closed to tags, never once were low limits implemented on lakes with already existing healthy populations...

The AB fishery way, fish the lake out then try to fix it...

I might believe the arguments if fisheries didn't constantly screw up lakes like Wabamun for example... They have done the same thing on multiple lakes and they still never learn their lessons...

[MathewsArcher]

The FWIN reports seem to still be showing a reduction in populations or at best remaining constant (within the same confidence intervals) for those lakes on a draw. If populations are not recovering under the draw due to low recruitment they cannot withstand increased harvest you would see with restrictive limits of even 1 fish per angler. Angling pressure appears to be just to high. Seems to make sense to me as it has been described by the regional bios.

Wish the Province would provide more money for increased test netting but if a lake can only be sampled between 5-10 years I would rather a conservative approach be taken than having the fishery totally collapse.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by MathewsArcher

The FWIN reports seem to still be showing a reduction in populations or at best remaining constant (within the same confidence intervals) for those lakes on a draw. If populations are not recovering under the draw due to low recruitment they cannot withstand increased harvest you would see with restrictive limits of even 1 fish per angler. Angling pressure appears to be just to high. Seems to make sense to me as it has been described by the regional bios.

Wish the Province would provide more money for increased test netting but if a lake can only be sampled between 5-10 years I would rather a conservative approach be taken than having the fishery totally collapse.

Reduction in populations??? If lakes like Pigeon and Ste Anne used to be better then they are now then there was never anything wrong with them to begin with...

These same bios will tell you that based on their netting nothing is wrong with Wab yet anyone that actually fishes the lake knows there is a serious issue there now. I offered to send the Wab biologists pictures of over 200 wab pike from last year to prove it but they couldn't be bothered to look at them so either knew I was right or just don't care...

The key aspect to having a reduced limit system is that the lakes first have to be healthy. You can't start out with lakes that have hurting populations and you can't have half the lakes closed and wonder why a reduced limit doesn't work on the other lakes. It needs to be done as a system and it has never been used in AB so as I said before there is no evidence in any way shape or form to back up a claim that it wouldn't work. Their new minimum size limits work on many lakes such as Buck and there are plenty of healthy walleye in there although yes you will have to work hard to get a keeper.

All the draw system has done is shifted a lot more pressure on the few lakes that you can keep walleye at and soon they will close all them and may or may not put tags in place. It is a catch 22 system that may help one lake but it hurts multiple others.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by RavYak

You can't argue the systems wouldn't work when they have never been tried... AB went from high limits to closed to tags, never once were low limits implemented on lakes with already existing healthy populations...

It was tried on several lakes before bringing in tags - Long Lake by Boyle, Vincent lake in NB1. 1 fish limit per day. Also Calling Lake would be another. All have provided evidence to F&W, not zero, that a 1 fish limit would not work. I asked a lot of questions at the time about instituting a 1 walleye limit on most lakes that could support it but I was told that lakes would be fished out and some very quickly. So please don't quote "zero" evidence and "never been tried" because you are just wrong on these points, clearly.

This is a post about underscribed tags and you are taking it over, like so many other topics on this forum.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

This is a post about underscribed tags and you are taking it over, like so many other topics on this forum.

Because you disagree with a certain poster on every man topics , does not mean that his opinion is always wrong nor does it mean he is always right.
It just means that of you have differing opinions.

Everybody lease keep this thread civil and on topic or I will intervene.
Cat

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

It was tried on several lakes before bringing in tags - Long Lake by Boyle, Vincent lake in NB1. 1 fish limit per day. Also Calling Lake would be another. All have provided evidence to F&W, not zero, that a 1 fish limit would not work. I asked a lot of questions at the time about instituting a 1 walleye limit on most lakes that could support it but I was told that lakes would be fished out and some very quickly. So please don't quote "zero" evidence and "never been tried" because you are just wrong on these points, clearly.

This is a post about underscribed tags and you are taking it over, like so many other topics on this forum.

You aren't listening. It has to be done as a system across the whole province/area not on one lake here and one lake there while the rest are all closed... If the majority of waters are closed it doesn't matter what you do with the remaining lakes because they will always see too much pressure. Just like how Calling, Slave and other lakes have seen significantly more pressure in recent years due to the tag and closure systems on these other lakes.

Yes this is a bit of a tangent but it is on the same topic and I believe the OP's questions have all been answered. If not he or someone else is welcome to ask for further clarification.

[MathewsArcher]

Originally Posted by RavYak

Reduction in populations??? If lakes like Pigeon and Ste Anne used to be better then they are now then there was never anything wrong with them to begin with...

These same bios will tell you that based on their netting nothing is wrong with Wab yet anyone that actually fishes the lake knows there is a serious issue there now. I offered to send the Wab biologists pictures of over 200 wab pike from last year to prove it but they couldn't be bothered to look at them so either knew I was right or just don't care...

The key aspect to having a reduced limit system is that the lakes first have to be healthy. You can't start out with lakes that have hurting populations and you can't have half the lakes closed and wonder why a reduced limit doesn't work on the other lakes. It needs to be done as a system and it has never been used in AB so as I said before there is no evidence in any way shape or form to back up a claim that it wouldn't work. Their new minimum size limits work on many lakes such as Buck and there are plenty of healthy walleye in there although yes you will have to work hard to get a keeper.

All the draw system has done is shifted a lot more pressure on the few lakes that you can keep walleye at and soon they will close all them and may or may not put tags in place. It is a catch 22 system that may help one lake but it hurts multiple others.

Sorry will have to disagree, Data does not support the anecdotal information you feel outweighs scientific methodology used across North America. I have had many days on our Southern Alberta reservoirs catching insane numbers of Walleyes but after seeing the catch during the FWIN surveys on Crawling Valley and talking with the Bios have come to realize that we are just that good at targeting the limited highly productive habitats within a system to catching fish and that population levels just are not as high as perceived.

I believe that the Bios are doing the best job they can given limited resources and really do want to see seasons opened. I know that the hope was a season would be opened on Crawling (given the anecdotal reports of large catches) but the science and sampling just did not support it at this time. They continue to sample these systems in order to determine when they can be opened. If they truly wanted them to remain closed they would focus their attention elsewhere.