Walleye Draw and Undersubscribed

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by RavYak

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.

No, I listened just fine. You use words like "zero", "no evidence" - I can go back and quote but they are just above in this post. I just provided some examples but of course those don't count in your world???
I figured you would post back with a must be province-wide or it doesn't work.

If you are that worked up about it, work with the people that actual work in our fisheries.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

No, I listened just fine. You use words like "zero", "no evidence" - I can go back and quote but they are just above in this post. I just provided some examples but of course those don't count in your world???
I figured you would post back with a must be province-wide or it doesn't work.

If you are that worked up about it, work with the people that actual work in our fisheries.

There is no evidence that macro managing lakes with reduced limits would work because lakes have never been macro managed like that. The "examples" you posted were of micro managed lakes...

In order for my system to be tested you need EVERY walleye lake in northern/central AB to be open to retention of 1 walleye. I don't know the details exactly on Calling Lake but based on what I have read here it is my belief the reason it has begun to hurt is because all of the other lakes were closed forcing increased pressure on Calling. Similar to how Gull Lake is now extremely over fished because everything around it is pretty much catch and release now... Such situations are the opposite of what I proposed not examples of why my system would not work.

In some ways I would love to be involved with our fisheries but based on some stories and first hand experiences I have had in dealing with a few of the biologists I want nothing to do with our fisheries group as it appears to be run on politics rather then actual data and common sense.

[genno]

I didn't try the walleye license, I figured its better to just purchase the Saskatchewan fishing license for walleye, and go to candle lake.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by RavYak

There is no evidence that macro managing lakes with reduced limits would work because lakes have never been macro managed like that. The "examples" you posted were of micro managed lakes...

In order for my system to be tested you need EVERY walleye lake in northern/central AB to be open to retention of 1 walleye. I don't know the details exactly on Calling Lake but based on what I have read here it is my belief the reason it has begun to hurt is because all of the other lakes were closed forcing increased pressure on Calling. Similar to how Gull Lake is now extremely over fished because everything around it is pretty much catch and release now... Such situations are the opposite of what I proposed not examples of why my system would not work.

In some ways I would love to be involved with our fisheries but based on some stories and first hand experiences I have had in dealing with a few of the biologists I want nothing to do with our fisheries group as it appears to be run on politics rather then actual data and common sense.

You said "no" and "zero" but I'm telling you that is not the case - nothing else, simple.

Sooooo your solution is to paint the regs broadly, complain about those that do manage and broadly paint them under the same brush, and to do so on a forum and do nothing else but that. Good plan.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

You said "no" and "zero" but I'm telling you that is not the case - nothing else, simple.

Sooooo your solution is to paint the regs broadly, complain about those that do manage and broadly paint them under the same brush, and to do so on a forum and do nothing else but that. Good plan.

You are telling me it isn't the case but you are not providing any examples to back up your claims... Calling is not an example of my system and like I say I don't know the details good enough at that lake but I have read on here it is actually overrun with walleye(just hard to get a slot size). A few examples in the following thread and if you search will find more. Lets say those comments are wrong though, do you think it is the slot size that ruined the lake or perhaps there is some netting done by locals up there...

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showt...hlight=calling

Lets change gears.

What is your thoughts on the walleye populations in Lesser Slave and Lower Buck? Like Calling you can keep a walleye at both of these lakes. One is a 43 cm min, and one a 50 cm min vs the 43 cm to 50 cm slot on Calling. Lets say 3 have lots of walleye(just based on what I have read about Calling and know about the other 2). You might struggle to catch a keeper size at these lakes but that doesn't mean there isn't lots of walleye and that they don't have a healthy population going.

And that is considering that all 3 of these lakes get hammered extremely hard due to the fact that they are some of the closest lakes a guy can fish at without tags.

Honestly if a Bio tells you a 50 cm min lake is going to be fished out I wonder how? How are they going to fish out the smaller walleye? How is it lakes like Buck have successful walleye populations when there are next to none over 50 cm? Having a 50 cm limit might decrease the average size doesn't mean there isn't a healthy population of fish there... And if they don't think 50 cm min size is big enough then increase it... Manage the populations by determining the minimum size required(50 does seem to work) in order for a walleye population to remain self supporting. Then monitor the lake to make sure it isn't getting overrun with small walleye(which can be a significant issue, one that fisheries often overlooks) and if it is then open it for smaller fish retention but only for a very limited time.

Fisheries can control walleye populations and they don't need to do it with tags. In fact the tag idea hasn't always worked, for example what happened to Battle?

My "solution" is not to just complain... It is to make my opinion heard so that others can hear it and can decide if they think what I am saying makes sense. And those people may be involved with fisheries directly or they may decide to go to meetings with fisheries or they may decide to phone in etc and voice their opinions. Just because I choose not to fight the battle head on does not mean my opinion on here is meaningless. And if you don't like hearing other peoples opinions on fishing subjects perhaps you should spend less time on fishing forums...

[morgan]

Hows about we end this BS walleye nonsense,

And stock and manage a real game fish, and get our stillwater trout fishing sorted out..

The money and effort for walleye is wasted on a lame fighting species that wrecks other fisheries (pike at Pigeon).
They taste good, but aren't draw and tag worthy...

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by morgan

Hows about we end this BS walleye nonsense,

And stock and manage a real game fish, and get our stillwater trout fishing sorted out..

The money and effort for walleye is wasted on a lame fighting species that wrecks other fisheries (pike at Pigeon).
They taste good, but aren't draw and tag worthy...

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by morgan

Hows about we end this BS walleye nonsense,

And stock and manage a real game fish, and get our stillwater trout fishing sorted out..

The money and effort for walleye is wasted on a lame fighting species that wrecks other fisheries (pike at Pigeon).
They taste good, but aren't draw and tag worthy...

Don't even get me started on trout lol...

I agree though, walleye don't fight worth crap in comparison and are only good for eating. Yet they focus on slough trout for food and walleye for catch and release...

[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.

Back up my claims??? It is already a part of history but obviously one you missed. When you make statement like "zero evidence" you pretty lost me there. Anything after just looks like your searching. It's like when you say you won't support tags and complain about it but then turn around and say that you are thinking of picking up under scribed. Yeah...

I can tell you my thoughts on the lakes you asked but you won't listen. In fact, I already did if you read between the lines. Certain lakes can support it and certain lakes can't, especially if it became province-wide again...so how did that work out in the past...not so good huh. What's changed since then...tons more people and anglers. So let's flog a dead horse deader now???

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by morgan

Hows about we end this BS walleye nonsense,

And stock and manage a real game fish, and get our stillwater trout fishing sorted out..

The money and effort for walleye is wasted on a lame fighting species that wrecks other fisheries (pike at Pigeon).
They taste good, but aren't draw and tag worthy...

Not bad, and you didn't need a diagram to explain it. Nice work!

[morgan]

Seriously,

If our fisheries put this kind of effort into trout fishing, we would have a real world trout fishery.
Two years of this on Dolberg Lake (catch and release, size limits, bait ban, reduced stocking numbers)
And there would be a lake that had good numbers of Rainbows to 10lbs,

Do this with East Pit and other potholes (provided we can get the aeration issue delt with) in the Edmonton area and you would have real Fly shops in Edmonton.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Iso how did that work out in the past...not so good huh. What's changed since then...tons more people and anglers. So let's flog a dead horse deader now???

What has changed? Unless I am mistaken the limits were much higher back then and there were no size limits in place either... There was nothing in place to protect the fish and although there were fewer anglers the majority of anglers kept WAY more fish then the average anglers do today...

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by morgan

Seriously,

If our fisheries put this kind of effort into trout fishing, we would have a real world trout fishery.
Two years of this on Dolberg Lake (catch and release, size limits, bait ban, reduced stocking numbers)
And there would be a lake that had good numbers of Rainbows to 10lbs,

Do this with East Pit and other potholes (provided we can get the aeration issue delt with) in the Edmonton area and you would have real Fly shops in Edmonton.

Ugh I said don't get me started lol. There are 10's of lakes that are capable of growing trophy trout yet we decide to overstock them or not protect them with special regs and instead decide to try and turn sloughs like Muir into "trophy" fisheries... You try asking fisheries to protect a couple of these lakes like say Obed and they pretty much laugh at you and wonder why you would want to protect a trout... I would take a 10+ lb trout any day over almost any other species in AB...

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by morgan

Seriously,

If our fisheries put this kind of effort into trout fishing, we would have a real world trout fishery.
Two years of this on Dolberg Lake (catch and release, size limits, bait ban, reduced stocking numbers)
And there would be a lake that had good numbers of Rainbows to 10lbs,

Do this with East Pit and other potholes (provided we can get the aeration issue delt with) in the Edmonton area and you would have real Fly shops in Edmonton.

I'm with you. Much better fighting fish pound for pound. Just don't let the ACA aerate it either though

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by RavYak

What has changed? Unless I am mistaken the limits were much higher back then and there were no size limits in place either... There was nothing in place to protect the fish and although there were fewer anglers the majority of anglers kept WAY more fish then the average anglers do today...

No, they were and were reduced year over year until they were that 1 or 2 fish limit and that didn't work either. Do you have selective amnesia or something?

The pilot program, which you also have selective amnesia on, was just prior to tags where certain lakes were set to a 1 walleye limit for limited amount of time. Some where fished out and considered collapsed and others didn't chane. It all depends on location, access, water condition, and other factor after other factor. 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. It's that interim..or long term solution. I'm pretty sure anyone on here would appreciate not requiring a tag or paying for it, but, it was there already from hunting and costed much less to implement then some other harder to imagine scheme. The costs of the tags covers the administrative costs. They have a new vendor now so hopefully have a better deal than when IBM ran it...I was told that costs pretty much just covered their expenses.

One thing that tags have done at Pigeon is reduce the overall population at a sustainable rate. Catching a lot of walleye at over 50 cm on average is bad how? And, and as you have so well pointed out, here are these left over C tags that not many want and are a size that is hard to come by. Well cause what size class will be left alone more than the others and left to flourish - sounds like a success is coming. So don't buy in on the tags - you will be helping without even knowing it.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

No, they were and were reduced year over year until they were that 1 or 2 fish limit and that didn't work either. Do you have selective amnesia or something?

The pilot program, which you also have selective amnesia on, was just prior to tags where certain lakes were set to a 1 walleye limit for limited amount of time. Some where fished out and considered collapsed and others didn't chane. It all depends on location, access, water condition, and other factor after other factor. 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. It's that interim..or long term solution. I'm pretty sure anyone on here would appreciate not requiring a tag or paying for it, but, it was there already from hunting and costed much less to implement then some other harder to imagine scheme. The costs of the tags covers the administrative costs. They have a new vendor now so hopefully have a better deal than when IBM ran it...I was told that costs pretty much just covered their expenses.

One thing that tags have done at Pigeon is reduce the overall population at a sustainable rate. Catching a lot of walleye at over 50 cm on average is bad how? And, and as you have so well pointed out, here are these left over C tags that not many want and are a size that is hard to come by. Well cause what size class will be left alone more than the others and left to flourish - sounds like a success is coming. So don't buy in on the tags - you will be helping without even knowing it.

When did Pigeon have a 1 over 50 cm limit? The following makes it sound like it went from catch and release straight to tags.

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=11006

If I understand that right tags started in 2006, FWIN data was very good in 2003, 2004 and 2005 so if it had been opened prior there was no damage done...

Maybe it had a 1 fish limit back in the 80's or 90's but that was before it was ever recovered and you can't assume that it doesn't work to sustain walleye populations when it clearly does seem to be working on some other lakes that we have definitive evidence on.

I haven't fished here long enough to know every detail but I am pretty certain that a system such as I have proposed has never been implemented here as I have seen nothing saying otherwise and I also know that my system requires recovered lakes to be successful and many of these lakes have only just been recovered...

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by Jet

My understanding is that a number of lakes around the province were stocked with Walleye. Some succeeded and produced a self maintaining population, some were even so successful, they were used to stock some others, and a lot didn't work out.

Pigeon is considered one of the successes which means they can target population control with tags to avoid it being fished out.

Yes I know they tried stocking lakes and leaving them open, that was back in the 80's and 90's.

More information in this link for those that don't know about it.

http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/...ep23-2015A.pdf

All of our lakes are getting better. We don't have regulations in place for sustaining yet because they are still focused on improving populations at the moment(although I think their definition of a healthy population is too high as many of their "healthy" lakes struggle with the health of other species). Once they feel they have all these populations back to healthy levels they can open up more of the regulations to enter a sustaining phase instead of recovery phase.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by RavYak

When did Pigeon have a 1 over 50 cm limit? The following makes it sound like it went from catch and release straight to tags.

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=11006

If I understand that right tags started in 2006, FWIN data was very good in 2003, 2004 and 2005 so if it had been opened prior there was no damage done...

Maybe it had a 1 fish limit back in the 80's or 90's but that was before it was ever recovered and you can't assume that it doesn't work to sustain walleye populations when it clearly does seem to be working on some other lakes that we have definitive evidence on.

I haven't fished here long enough to know every detail but I am pretty certain that a system such as I have proposed has never been implemented here as I have seen nothing saying otherwise and I also know that my system requires recovered lakes to be successful and many of these lakes have only just been recovered...

So your plan is based off one lake? Pigeon?? LOL!
Looks like you should change your "plan" for a one fish limit at Pigeon. Sounds like you agree on specific management too so we both agree.

If you want a good example of an area that was reduced take NB1. Slowly reduced to 1 on most lakes and eventually tags for any that have walleye sustainment. Why? So that the remaining fish can be managed and are not fished out as well even at a 1 fish limit. I don't understand how you can't see this as the same.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by RavYak

Once they feel they have all these populations back to healthy levels they can open up more of the regulations to enter a sustaining phase instead of recovery phase.

Yep, that phase is referred to as tags

Sounds like even though our bios are useless to you that they are doing a good job at recovery. Hmmm... looks like another one of your statements are flipping again. Just hold onto that one fish limit for everywhere...I'm sure it has validity.

By the way, it is okay for you to eventually say "Yeah, I guess that I never thought it through enough...maybe I was wrong".

[binnzer32]

Obviously you haven't caught many big walleye. Or you use overkill gear...the trout out here blow compared to the west or Ontario. They are the real waste of money. Taste like dirt too and don't reproduce. .

Originally Posted by RavYak

Don't even get me started on trout lol...

I agree though, walleye don't fight worth crap in comparison and are only good for eating. Yet they focus on slough trout for food and walleye for catch and release...

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by binnzer32

Obviously you haven't caught many big walleye. Or you use overkill gear...the trout out here blow compared to the west or Ontario. They are the real waste of money. Taste like dirt too and don't reproduce. .

Have to agree. Never was a fan of slough trout. Unnatural fake fishing at its finest.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by binnzer32

Obviously you haven't caught many big walleye. Or you use overkill gear...the trout out here blow compared to the west or Ontario. They are the real waste of money. Taste like dirt too and don't reproduce. .

I agree 100%. It would make more sense to put the resources on native species rather than introduced species. Trout ponds are good for kids.

[MathewsArcher]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Have to agree. Never was a fan of slough trout. Unnatural fake fishing at its finest.

X4 non-native fish that money should not be wasted on stocking.

[Vigsy]

Originally Posted by binnzer32

Obviously you haven't caught many big walleye. Or you use overkill gear...the trout out here blow compared to the west or Ontario. They are the real waste of money. Taste like dirt too and don't reproduce. .

100%

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by binnzer32

Obviously you haven't caught many big walleye. Or you use overkill gear...the trout out here blow compared to the west or Ontario. They are the real waste of money. Taste like dirt too and don't reproduce. .

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...

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by binnzer32

Obviously you haven't caught many big walleye. Or you use overkill gear...the trout out here blow compared to the west or Ontario. They are the real waste of money. Taste like dirt too and don't reproduce. .

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Have to agree. Never was a fan of slough trout. Unnatural fake fishing at its finest.

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I agree 100%. It would make more sense to put the resources on native species rather than introduced species. Trout ponds are good for kids.

Originally Posted by MathewsArcher

X4 non-native fish that money should not be wasted on stocking.

Originally Posted by Vigsy

100%

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...

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.

[EZM]

It hard to place all the blame on the province's Biologists. They are grossly under funded and under resourced.

It's like asking your buddy to build you a fence, give him all the proper lumber but them hand him scotch tape and staples to put it together ....... what results are you going to expect?

The only way you can effectively manage this resource (Alberta's high pressure fisheries) is to study each watershed and apply a management strategy, and keep monitoring it and changing it to keep the goals on target.

Having said that, I think there are some lakes where they may have caused an overpopulation of walleye to impact other species. Too many walleye also leads to smaller sizes amongst their own species as they compete for food.

Tags are one way to effectively manage population control - the science is trying to figure out how many tags to issue for each size class to meet the watershed's goals. Without proper resources to continue to monitor, and adjust the harvest properly to maintain target levels, ..... It's pretty tough to be successful.

Overall, although not perfect, I like the tag system.

[EZM]

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.

I was also just reading this thread and tried to stay out of it. I think people forget the fact that comparing Alberta to Sask where they have 10-15 times the watersheds and one third the fishing pressure isn't really a fair comparison.

Being a Biologist in Sask is a much easier job.

Alberta does need put/take programs. The trout program is a good example. The application to walley where we are using tags for walleye closely emulates the same type of strategy - which really isn't a bad thing.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

So your plan is based off one lake? Pigeon?? LOL!
Looks like you should change your "plan" for a one fish limit at Pigeon. Sounds like you agree on specific management too so we both agree.

If you want a good example of an area that was reduced take NB1. Slowly reduced to 1 on most lakes and eventually tags for any that have walleye sustainment. Why? So that the remaining fish can be managed and are not fished out as well even at a 1 fish limit. I don't understand how you can't see this as the same.

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).

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Yep, that phase is referred to as tags

Sounds like even though our bios are useless to you that they are doing a good job at recovery. Hmmm... looks like another one of your statements are flipping again. Just hold onto that one fish limit for everywhere...I'm sure it has validity.

By the way, it is okay for you to eventually say "Yeah, I guess that I never thought it through enough...maybe I was wrong".

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.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by EZM

I agree.

I was also just reading this thread and tried to stay out of it. I think people forget the fact that comparing Alberta to Sask where they have 10-15 times the watersheds and one third the fishing pressure isn't really a fair comparison.

Being a Biologist in Sask is a much easier job.

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!