|
|
03-26-2018, 12:30 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 353
|
|
SNAP, I agree with a lot of what you are saying in this thread except one thing: I call BS that people are having trouble finding Walleye in the slot range at Calling.
I have been there almost every weekend this ice season starting in January, and I have caught at least 4 or 5 fish every trip in the slot size with many below and above the slot. Dewski Canuck can back me up on that one. Many fish fries were had at his cabin this winter, enough that I actually laughed when you said people drive right past Calling because they can't get a keeper.
The last weekend I was there (The 17th?) , there were at least 30 trucks out near Volkswagon and everybody was catching keepers, and if you knew what structure to target, you were catching consistent fish over 26 inches as well, some fish close to 10 pounds landed this winter. I know the group I was fishing with caught at least 4 walleye the last few weekends that were over 7 pounds, including one caught personally by me.
Not only are there lots of huge walleye in Calling, but there are more than enough small guys too. Quite often you could catch a range from 40 CM to 65+ CM in the same day, same spot.
This fish in calling are also getting thicker and thicker, no more skinny bodies and big heads. The 7+ pound class fish we are getting at our spot are very very thick and very very healthy.
Calling lake the slot works, full stop. It also has the proper recruitment to support the constant harvest of slot size fish. If anyone you talk to ever have trouble getting keeper walleye at Calling Lake they need to reevaluate how good of fisherman they actually are.
Slots won't work for every lake though, there is no easy "fix all" regulation that can magically make everyone happy. Lake-by-lake analysis needs to be done which requires $$$ that SRD / F&W don't have at the moment. And every time they try and get that cash to do lake-by-lake studies everyone complains about a "money grab"
I say make the licenses 50-70 bucks each, use the cash from that as well as revenue from tags to do better analysis before making blanket C&R regulations or instituting slot sizes. Because like I said, there is no easy "fix-all" answer. Some lakes need supplementary stocking due to poor recruitment, some lakes reproduce naturally and don't need any stocking because it will throw off the balance of predator-to-prey. Right now, decisions are being made without adequate research (due to lack of funding) and these decisions made without proper research do not always help things but sometimes make things worse... it seems like an endless self-sustaining cycle.
Me personally, I don't mind paying a little bit more if it means the resource is better managed. Right now SRD / F&W are fighting a losing battle, so many anglers, not enough water & nobody can agree what is right or wrong. Its a thankless job really, I feel bad for them and the situation they are in. Not that they are innocent but it feels like they have to face the music after years of mismanagement by previous administrations as well as anglers like us.
/ end rant.
|
03-26-2018, 12:46 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,432
|
|
No problem NSR Fisher. You have more experience than I on Calling. I hope to change that this next season. And not really for the walleye either but that would be a bonus once in awhile. I'm just recanting what I heard from more than one person that day and they drove all the way to Orloff so I was thinking there is some merit. Thanks for the input.
|
03-26-2018, 12:54 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher
Good answer. I agree with you that it will take a lot more effort than it did to stop river closures. We are a bit more divided on this one than the rivers – meaning anglers in general being more divided.
If I can share one experience this ice season that supports what you and others have said about more pressure on a lake due to changing regs around it. Orloff Lake. I’ve been meaning to get there for about 5 years now. I finally hit it up 3 weeks ago with a buddy of mine. I wish I would have went when I first heard of it…
Get there and there appears to be nice skidoo trail in. On the way on the skidoo it is indeed a nice trail there were even some nice bridges installed along the way over creeks and wet areas. I’m thinking this is pretty sweet and well maintained which I really expected something more basic and harder. Get on the lake and start exploring. Only 2 other groups skidooed in that I could see. Getting excited now! Start working around the island and it takes a bit but we find walleye, some small perch and a pike in 3 different holes. Bonus!
Fished for a while and did have some decent luck for sure but nothing to get too excited about yet. More and more groups are arriving though. Before noon the trucks start showing up…WTF!…
And they keep coming for the next couple of hours. Must have been quite a line of them. So by mid afternoon I think I counted around 10-12 trucks and another 6 or so groups on skidoos. It is getting crowded for what my imagination thought it would be which was lake full of big fish practically to ourselves. It is a small lake if you don’t know it already so this was a lot to take in and see this much pressure.
So my buddy goes over and chats with couple of groups that drove trucks on. Apparently that is a road now around from the North that adds another 50-60 minutes to get into the lake. Doesn’t sound like a great road but it is there now nonetheless. The reason they are there, to try to get that 1 walleye over 50 cm. Sounds like this is still their go to place on most days.
So we move on and we get setup in a new place to try where there is a steep drop off. We get setup and start fishing…nothing great. And up pulls a skidoo and it is a Fish & Wildlife Officer.
First, great to see them out enforcing in a more remote area but second, and better, I now had someone to ask more questions about what is happening and confirm what we are seeing. He filled us in that the road and improved trail really did make the different and for the past 5 years the traffic went from light to heavy, based on the size of the lake. He also said that on any given summer weekend he sees 15 or so separate boats on Orloff using the improved trail to bring smaller boats in…but even some not so small as in beyond just tinners, some even with campers, etc. He also confirmed that most are there to get 1 walleye over 50 cm. He confirmed, as my buddy did when talking to the other groups, that they drive right past Calling Lake as they are finding it hard to find many walleye in the slot range.
This was my only trip ever to Orloff and to summarize this long assed post, I learned:
- That I won’t be going back to Orloff as I’m looking for something a bit more off the beaten track.
- That reducing limits on other lakes in the area, Calling aside, does really put pressure on other lakes.
- That slot sizes will likely not work so well as I’m hearing more about Calling – time will tell though.
- That walleye are insanely popular across the province(duh I know)…not so with me by the way…they are tasty but not that sporty imho.
- That people will not stop hammering the hell out of lake and move on until they are gone or the regs are put in place to further protect fish.
Sad that we cannot govern ourselves better but that is the way today. I don’t see a general opening of regulations being an answer to making this better. Rather, very specific regs for each zone / area that do look to ways to even the impact including the usage of tags. And yeah, I don’t love them either but I do believe that we do not have enough resources / fish to sustain our population. Just my opinion only but I don’t blame the government for our worsening situation. It is shared for sure with government and anglers. Change will come…or we’ll have nothing to little left, it is needed.
Okay, I’ve droned on far too long. Anyone else feel free to chime in. Sorry if Orloff was still some kind of secret but it is nothing that I’m too excited about as there are far closer lakes with easier access and fishing imho.
|
Good post and this is a great example of why I say the focus needs to be on keeping lakes open as the fishing pressure just keeps increasing on the remaining lakes. I believe it wasn't that long ago that Orloff was a pretty good lake and not fished near as heavily but when you change half the lakes to C&R then that is what is going to happen. I might have to go through the regs and figure out the actual percentage of lakes that are closed to retention as I think some would find it staggering. It is definitely staggering when you consider which lakes they are as many of them are our productive lakes while many of the remaining open limit lakes have far less fish holding ability.
Sylvan, Gull, Pigeon, Buck, Wabamun, Ste. Anne all will be 0 limit for pike, most 0 limit for walleye(or tags).
Maybe I am crazy but I would rather those lakes have the open limits and take the brunt of fishing pressure then force these guys to go fish all these other remote lakes. The 0 limits being employed next year on Sylvan, Gull, Buck and the reduction on Buffalo are going to have a hugely negative affect on these types of lakes next year as you are going to have guys driving up to fish lakes like Orloff from as far away as Calgary and Red Deer now... We can't drive further ourselves to find better opportunity as even places like Graham, Peerless, Christina, Winefred, Utikuma etc are going to C&R.
I hope you will return to Orloff next year just to see the results of what these latest regulation changes are going to have. It is easy to blame the anglers but the anglers are just trying to catch a fish they can keep. The 10 or 12 trucks this year will probably be 20+ next year... You can't expect anything different when you force over half our fishing population to fish 1/10th of our waterbodies...
|
03-26-2018, 01:11 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 381
|
|
It's really unnerving and upsetting when the people in charge dont know how to manage a fishery. Its almost as if they hired the same crew as the Oilers did to run their franchise. Bunch of twits running things into the ground. I grew up fishing on Pigeon lake as our family had a cabin there. It was a pike lake, they also had lots of perch, whites and walleye but it held many pike. Many BIG pike. I don't have to tell you guys that lake has changed. You will be hard pressed to find a big pike left in that lake or better yet a perch. Let me tell you, you will have no problem catching 1-2 pound walleye though. I don't see those little fells growing into 10 pounders either with the population and food supply. This is a typical story that many lakes have suffered. I dont get it.
|
03-26-2018, 01:35 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: WMU 303
Posts: 8,478
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSR Fisher
SNAP, I agree with a lot of what you are saying in this thread except one thing: I call BS that people are having trouble finding Walleye in the slot range at Calling.
I have been there almost every weekend this ice season starting in January, and I have caught at least 4 or 5 fish every trip in the slot size with many below and above the slot. Dewski Canuck can back me up on that one. Many fish fries were had at his cabin this winter, enough that I actually laughed when you said people drive right past Calling because they can't get a keeper.
The last weekend I was there (The 17th?) , there were at least 30 trucks out near Volkswagon and everybody was catching keepers, and if you knew what structure to target, you were catching consistent fish over 26 inches as well, some fish close to 10 pounds landed this winter. I know the group I was fishing with caught at least 4 walleye the last few weekends that were over 7 pounds, including one caught personally by me.
Not only are there lots of huge walleye in Calling, but there are more than enough small guys too. Quite often you could catch a range from 40 CM to 65+ CM in the same day, same spot.
This fish in calling are also getting thicker and thicker, no more skinny bodies and big heads. The 7+ pound class fish we are getting at our spot are very very thick and very very healthy.
Calling lake the slot works, full stop. It also has the proper recruitment to support the constant harvest of slot size fish. If anyone you talk to ever have trouble getting keeper walleye at Calling Lake they need to reevaluate how good of fisherman they actually are.
Slots won't work for every lake though, there is no easy "fix all" regulation that can magically make everyone happy. Lake-by-lake analysis needs to be done which requires $$$ that SRD / F&W don't have at the moment. And every time they try and get that cash to do lake-by-lake studies everyone complains about a "money grab"
I say make the licenses 50-70 bucks each, use the cash from that as well as revenue from tags to do better analysis before making blanket C&R regulations or instituting slot sizes. Because like I said, there is no easy "fix-all" answer. Some lakes need supplementary stocking due to poor recruitment, some lakes reproduce naturally and don't need any stocking because it will throw off the balance of predator-to-prey. Right now, decisions are being made without adequate research (due to lack of funding) and these decisions made without proper research do not always help things but sometimes make things worse... it seems like an endless self-sustaining cycle.
Me personally, I don't mind paying a little bit more if it means the resource is better managed. Right now SRD / F&W are fighting a losing battle, so many anglers, not enough water & nobody can agree what is right or wrong. Its a thankless job really, I feel bad for them and the situation they are in. Not that they are innocent but it feels like they have to face the music after years of mismanagement by previous administrations as well as anglers like us.
/ end rant.
|
Please. Understand that 16 year olds, low income, unemployed, people who fish a couple weekends a year would not be inspired by your solution of fixing a fishery by more than doubling the cost of licenses. You'll end up paying more and still not enough in the pot to satisfy insatiable govt spending. Doubling or tripling fees will exclude a portion of the population who would have ordinarily purchased licenses, but now do not, thereby not having a larger pot of cash to draw from. The end result..........you pay more, little Johnny doesn't have a license and the whole idea of having more cash to spend on initiatives failed.
|
03-26-2018, 02:29 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: McBride/Prince George
Posts: 14,502
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CNP
Please. Understand that 16 year olds, low income, unemployed, people who fish a couple weekends a year would not be inspired by your solution of fixing a fishery by more than doubling the cost of licenses. You'll end up paying more and still not enough in the pot to satisfy insatiable govt spending. Doubling or tripling fees will exclude a portion of the population who would have ordinarily purchased licenses, but now do not, thereby not having a larger pot of cash to draw from. The end result..........you pay more, little Johnny doesn't have a license and the whole idea of having more cash to spend on initiatives failed.
|
Correct.
Or you could make it 500 dollars a licence, have most lakes to yourself, and watch the fish populations rebound and stabilize. But that would be douche move on the govt part. Would be as bad as paid access hunting where the rich get all the opportunities.
|
03-26-2018, 02:47 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 353
|
|
If 50 bucks for a license is too much too pay, I can't help you man. You're right, the government loves to spend. But they are criminally underfunding resource development like hunting & fishing.
Let me get this straight, we want SRD / F&W to fix things, right? But they say they don't have enough resources. So lets just wave our magic wands then, or copy Saskatchewans regulations because they seem to have it figured out right? Wrong. The provinces water bodies are nowhere near comparable and its not like we can suddenly create 1000 more fishable bodies of water in this province to satisfy the demand.
To hit on a few of your complaints:
16 year olds spend more than 50 bucks on random junk all the time, if they can't pony up the cost of a flat of beer for a year-long license then they need to pick a different sport.
Unemployed people need to worry about getting employed, not going out and hammering some walleye.
Alberta licenses are very, very cheap. Increasing it 2X would not make a dent in 99% of the anglers pocket books.
Now, we have to make sure the money is spent properly which is a whole other battle. But the first step has to be made and that begins with us anglers realizing that we need to do more to protect our resource, and not just with cash but with information and discussion.
|
03-26-2018, 02:52 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 353
|
|
The raising of the price of licenses is just one way to get SRD more money, maybe the Provincial government can re-assess how they are spending and divert money from other areas towards resource development instead of putting the cost on anglers.
At the same time though, it wouldn't be a big deal to increase the price to 50 bucks. 70 is a bit much I admit I was just throwing a number out there.
|
03-26-2018, 03:33 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Edmunchuk!
Posts: 144
|
|
If you go to the actual fishing regs website ( http://albertaregulations.ca/fishingregs/), the tables view much easier than on mywildalberta.
__________________
Now I know my ABC's
|
03-26-2018, 04:29 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 553
|
|
After reading through all these posts it paints a very clear picture, a picture that is the same in any of our provinces where fishing pressure issues abound. The management strategy isn’t about managing the fishery, the fish will take care of themselves if they have the right conditions each season. The strategy is managing the fisherman!! And thats where the trouble lies!
Last edited by The Spank; 03-26-2018 at 04:53 PM.
|
03-26-2018, 04:44 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 353
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Spank
After reading through all these posts it paints a very clear picture, a picture that is the same in any of our provinces where fishing pressure issues abound. The management strategy isn’t about managing the fishery, the fish will take care ofvthemselves if they have the right conditions each season. The strategy is managing the fisherman!! And thats where the trouble lies!
|
This is exactly the issue. The problem in Alberta is simple: Too many anglers not enough water.
The other issue is that a lot of the lakes that are constant problems have an issue with recruitment because they are not reproducing naturally. Some will say that lake X is overflowing with stunted walleye... sure, that might be true, but they were all stocked in there and are not reproducing, so you can open it up clear out all those numbers then we are back to square one. A dead lake.
I do think there is something to the "slot size will fix things" argument, and really tags are just a fancy way of instituting slot sizes that also raises funds for a criminally under-funded SRD/F&W.
Honestly I think we as Albertans have to move past the thinking that "its my god given right to bonk a fish every time I'm out" - Its almost like a lot of guys here think they gotta keep as many fish as possible before they are all gone. That's such a backwards way to look at it. "Oh no, I better bonk these walleye to fill my freezer before this lake is fished out again" Maybe stop bonking walleye everytime you go out?
That doesn't mean that you need to close all the waters, but we need to be more selective with our harvests and the regulations are already moving that way. But there is still tons of work that needs to be done and more research needs to be done to decide which lakes need to be closed and which ones need to be opened and which ones need to have special harvest circumstances like tags ETC. Some lakes could be helped by re-building spawning areas and things like that, so the problem is permanently fixed on some of the "problem" lakes.
That costs money though and there are several different ways to raise that money. Either the province re-allocates funds from other areas or they raise the cost of licenses / institute more tags. Why is this so confusing for some people?
|
03-26-2018, 04:55 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 553
|
|
If you have lakes that are stocked and there is no natural recruitment then you’re best to make those lakes put and take lakes and stock them accordingly and walleye are not the ticket for that kind of a fishery in my opinion.
Last edited by The Spank; 03-26-2018 at 05:15 PM.
|
03-26-2018, 05:08 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: WMU 303
Posts: 8,478
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSR Fisher
If 50 bucks for a license is too much too pay, I can't help you man. You're right, the government loves to spend. But they are criminally underfunding resource development like hunting & fishing.
Let me get this straight, we want SRD / F&W to fix things, right? But they say they don't have enough resources. So lets just wave our magic wands then, or copy Saskatchewans regulations because they seem to have it figured out right? Wrong. The provinces water bodies are nowhere near comparable and its not like we can suddenly create 1000 more fishable bodies of water in this province to satisfy the demand.
To hit on a few of your complaints:
16 year olds spend more than 50 bucks on random junk all the time, if they can't pony up the cost of a flat of beer for a year-long license then they need to pick a different sport.
Unemployed people need to worry about getting employed, not going out and hammering some walleye.
Alberta licenses are very, very cheap. Increasing it 2X would not make a dent in 99% of the anglers pocket books.
Now, we have to make sure the money is spent properly which is a whole other battle. But the first step has to be made and that begins with us anglers realizing that we need to do more to protect our resource, and not just with cash but with information and discussion.
|
Let me clear about what you suggested. You didn't say $50. $50 was the starting point for you. Are you suggesting that increasing the fees of our licenses will equate to more fishing opportunity? I can afford your suggested range of $50 to $70 but it won't fix anything except price out some disadvantaged people. The people you are disparaging. You're talking about "we"........
Quote:
we have to make sure the money is spent properly which is a whole other battle. But the first step has to be made and that begins with us anglers realizing that we need to do more to protect our resource, and not just with cash but with information and discussion.
|
....words to action....that is where the substance is.
|
03-26-2018, 05:28 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,721
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Spank
If you have lakes that are stocked and there is no natural recruitment then you’re best to make those lakes put and take lakes and stock them accordingly and walleye are not the ticket for that kind of a fishery in my opinion.
|
Exactly ! Stock lakes annually with the $ from fishing licenses, like they do in every other Province, or States for that matter. We have too many fishermen and not enough lakes. That just says we also have an abundance of money from fishing licenses that is being spent elsewhere ! And I’m not talking about stocking lakes and then shutting them down to retention. That’s a dumb as it gets !
|
03-26-2018, 06:49 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 982
|
|
Aca
Guys....
Look at page 19 of the new regs. You will see that 64% of your existing yearly license cost...or about $17.92 goes directly to the ACA....NOT the government!
Ask them where the $5, 500,000 went that they collected last year...and how much of it went back into fisheries efforts.
|
03-26-2018, 07:19 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,432
|
|
Interesting. Amisk lake - lake whites changed to zero limit from 10. Anyone know the reasoning behind this?
|
03-26-2018, 07:24 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Alberta
Posts: 239
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowrance Fishburn
It's really unnerving and upsetting when the people in charge dont know how to manage a fishery. Its almost as if they hired the same crew as the Oilers did to run their franchise. Bunch of twits running things into the ground. I grew up fishing on Pigeon lake as our family had a cabin there. It was a pike lake, they also had lots of perch, whites and walleye but it held many pike. Many BIG pike. I don't have to tell you guys that lake has changed. You will be hard pressed to find a big pike left in that lake or better yet a perch. Let me tell you, you will have no problem catching 1-2 pound walleye though. I don't see those little fells growing into 10 pounders either with the population and food supply. This is a typical story that many lakes have suffered. I dont get it.
|
According to Dr. Michael Sullivan and his "Carrot Hypothesis," "Pigeon Lake, Lac Ste Anne, Wolf Lake are showing big walleye and satisfied anglers!"
Wow, these biologists are clueless. Hate to say it.
If retention of 1 pike over 63cm was their idea from the beginning, then it also shows their incompetence as many lakes which held that regulation are now 0 retention.
Slot sizes should be utilized in more Alberta Lakes, it may not work for all lakes, but it is a better option then the direction we are headed in.
Also in my opinion walleye lakes in Alberta that contain 90 percent walleye 49cm and under are not indicative of a healthy walleye population.
|
03-26-2018, 07:35 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher
Interesting. Amisk lake - lake whites changed to zero limit from 10. Anyone know the reasoning behind this?
|
Not sure if there many lake whites in there, but there are tons of cisco which fall under the same regs. Not sure why the would make that change.
|
03-26-2018, 07:48 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,432
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak
Good post and this is a great example of why I say the focus needs to be on keeping lakes open as the fishing pressure just keeps increasing on the remaining lakes. I believe it wasn't that long ago that Orloff was a pretty good lake and not fished near as heavily but when you change half the lakes to C&R then that is what is going to happen. I might have to go through the regs and figure out the actual percentage of lakes that are closed to retention as I think some would find it staggering. It is definitely staggering when you consider which lakes they are as many of them are our productive lakes while many of the remaining open limit lakes have far less fish holding ability.
Sylvan, Gull, Pigeon, Buck, Wabamun, Ste. Anne all will be 0 limit for pike, most 0 limit for walleye(or tags).
Maybe I am crazy but I would rather those lakes have the open limits and take the brunt of fishing pressure then force these guys to go fish all these other remote lakes. The 0 limits being employed next year on Sylvan, Gull, Buck and the reduction on Buffalo are going to have a hugely negative affect on these types of lakes next year as you are going to have guys driving up to fish lakes like Orloff from as far away as Calgary and Red Deer now... We can't drive further ourselves to find better opportunity as even places like Graham, Peerless, Christina, Winefred, Utikuma etc are going to C&R.
I hope you will return to Orloff next year just to see the results of what these latest regulation changes are going to have. It is easy to blame the anglers but the anglers are just trying to catch a fish they can keep. The 10 or 12 trucks this year will probably be 20+ next year... You can't expect anything different when you force over half our fishing population to fish 1/10th of our waterbodies...
|
I understand and do agree that putting zero on a lake and not on the one next to it or within a decent driving distance is not a good plan. I fear for Calling Lake...
But as I said before, I'm not in favor of opening retention at the expense of what we have remaining in the lakes you mention. Gull is pretty much toast for pike over 63cm and could use a recovery. At least Sylvan might be able to protect some of those mollys that are left.
It is not easy to blame the anglers. I'm one of them. I don't blame my problems on other people and take zero responsibility (i.e. blame the government alone). To me that is just plain wrong. But we must take some responsibility collectively. The limit your catch, not catch your limit can't be grasped by greedy anglers. I've met too many of them that will take to the allowed limit and come back and do it all over again.
|
03-26-2018, 07:57 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,432
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak
I might have to go through the regs and figure out the actual percentage of lakes that are closed to retention as I think some would find it staggering.
|
The format on http://albertaregulations.ca/fishingregs
should make it a bit easy to get in Excel format. I can work some quick magic there to get a summary by zone and region. I`ve got a crazy week this week but can get to it next week for sure. It will be interesting to see a summary...and yes, probably a bit shocking.
|
03-26-2018, 08:22 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSR Fisher
This is exactly the issue. The problem in Alberta is simple: Too many anglers not enough water.
|
That argument is so overused... There are many areas with as much or more fishing pressure then what we have including a number of SK, ON and MB lakes. Take into account the people in those areas can and often do keep 3-5 fish per trip compare to many of us Albertans that might only keep that many fish all year and the fishing pressure is actually much greater then what it is here... I kept more fish in a single day of fishing in SK then I did all year long last year here in AB... In a single day of fishing I literally had a more significant affect on their fisheries then I did in dozens of days fishing here...
Some of our lakes are capable of sustaining massive fishing pressure, many of which are not being used to even a fraction of their potential. Look how much pressure say Gull has had and yet it still continues to produce quality fish. When you can go out to a lake and catch multiple fish, usually some keeper size fish and have a chance of a quality fish all in a single day those are signs that a lake is far from hurting... Yet supposedly it needs to become C&R now...
There are some lakes set to 0 limit this year that have such high populations of fish that if you know where to go you can catch a fish almost every cast... That isn't the sign of too high of fishing pressure destroying fisheries... That is a sign of poor management decisions to make said lake 0 limit...
|
03-26-2018, 08:30 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher
But as I said before, I'm not in favor of opening retention at the expense of what we have remaining in the lakes you mention. Gull is pretty much toast for pike over 63cm and could use a recovery. At least Sylvan might be able to protect some of those mollys that are left.
|
I disagree about Gull. It isn't as easy as it used to be but as outlined in my last post it is still far from bad shape. I have caught keeper size pike every trip there which is something I can't say for some other lakes.
Our recent kayak tournament there saw at least 6 pike over 30 inches caught in a single day including a 37 incher that I caught.
Imagine if Gull had a slot limit the last 10 years... There would be a number of 40 inch pike in there(there already is the odd one even with current regs of 3 over 63), an extensive brood stock and therefore huge populations of younger fish all while maintaining the heavy fishing pressure it sees...
But slots don't work, Mr. Sullivan told us so... Better stick with his method of minimum size limits and C&R...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher
I've met too many of them that will take to the allowed limit and come back and do it all over again.
|
And again this is still fisheries fault for not implementing more reasonable limits. Why are perch still 15? Why are whites 10? Burbot 10? Pike 3?
Perch, whites and burbot should all be closer to 5. Pike and walleye should only be 1 or 2 on most lakes. Instead leave the limits high then switch to C&R... Doesn't make sense imo.
|
03-26-2018, 09:32 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,615
|
|
Obviously nsr you weren't even a glimmer in yer daddies eye 25 years ago. Gull was wall to wall whites and big fat jackfish that were perfect specimens because of the whitefish food base. There were 14 inch perch too that withstood the pressure until about ten years ago when the wallies showed up. Since then it's been straight downhill. Your 37 inch pike that weighed 12 lbs wouldnt raise an eyebrow in her hayday. Those walleye are an invasive species in a fish factory slough like gull. Those pike kept the balance it should have been managed as a pIke whitefish perch lake with maybe one under 60cm and protect your broodstock and still let a guy keep one to eat. Now the size is gone the numbers are gone the gene pool is toast. If you haven't seen the demise you are not one to say otherwise. Your 12 lb jack does not justify the thousands of breeder pike that got whacked because some moron said it was okay to do so. It's like raising cows and shooting every female you get. What have you got in the end? Frigg all.
|
03-26-2018, 10:35 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pikeman06
Obviously nsr you weren't even a glimmer in yer daddies eye 25 years ago. Gull was wall to wall whites and big fat jackfish that were perfect specimens because of the whitefish food base. There were 14 inch perch too that withstood the pressure until about ten years ago when the wallies showed up. Since then it's been straight downhill. Your 37 inch pike that weighed 12 lbs wouldnt raise an eyebrow in her hayday. Those walleye are an invasive species in a fish factory slough like gull. Those pike kept the balance it should have been managed as a pIke whitefish perch lake with maybe one under 60cm and protect your broodstock and still let a guy keep one to eat. Now the size is gone the numbers are gone the gene pool is toast. If you haven't seen the demise you are not one to say otherwise. Your 12 lb jack does not justify the thousands of breeder pike that got whacked because some moron said it was okay to do so. It's like raising cows and shooting every female you get. What have you got in the end? Frigg all.
|
I assume you are talking about me not NSR... I'm also a bit older then you think...
I don't doubt that Gull isn't as good a fishery as it used to be, I have noticed a difference even from the first times I fished it 4 or so years ago. It is still very far from a bad fishery though which was my point. I think you are on the right track when it comes to blaming the walleye as much as the fishing pressure though. They are thick in Gull now and the day of our tournament I caught 13 walleye while targeting pike and could have caught a bunch more if that had been my goal(they didn't count for tournament). Just like so many of these other lakes(Sylvan, Pigeon, Ste. Anne, Wabamun) we have seen a decline in the pike and other species populations as the walleye populations have grown substantially. Which makes sense as each lake only has so much ability to hold fish and when you leave one species protected by C&R and fish the other 4 species hard then you have to expect the protected species to take over the fishery.
Fishing pressure obviously has had an effect too, the fishing pressure for whites and perch at Gull has skyrocketed in recent years. Largely in thanks to walleye fisheries becoming tags/C&R everywhere so more anglers learned to target these other species that still have generous limits and don't require driving as far to target. Gull has been a favourite lake of many anglers in recent years thanks to its ability to produce well for all its species.
|
03-27-2018, 09:23 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,432
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak
I disagree about Gull. It isn't as easy as it used to be but as outlined in my last post it is still far from bad shape. I have caught keeper size pike every trip there which is something I can't say for some other lakes.
Our recent kayak tournament there saw at least 6 pike over 30 inches caught in a single day including a 37 incher that I caught.
Imagine if Gull had a slot limit the last 10 years... There would be a number of 40 inch pike in there(there already is the odd one even with current regs of 3 over 63), an extensive brood stock and therefore huge populations of younger fish all while maintaining the heavy fishing pressure it sees...
But slots don't work, Mr. Sullivan told us so... Better stick with his method of minimum size limits and C&R...
And again this is still fisheries fault for not implementing more reasonable limits. Why are perch still 15? Why are whites 10? Burbot 10? Pike 3?
Perch, whites and burbot should all be closer to 5. Pike and walleye should only be 1 or 2 on most lakes. Instead leave the limits high then switch to C&R... Doesn't make sense imo.
|
Those are better results then I've heard or seen myself - but I also have only ice fishing there over the past 5 years to my experience is now pretty limited. That is a glimmer to me. I'll say one thing, Gull is for sure proven to be very resilient in the face of some of the highest angling pressure in this province. It still has excellent forage species which is not the case for say Pigeon. And I can hear the “that’s because of the walleye” argument for Pigeon coming which I think is partially true along with over development and destruction of habitat for forage.
I agree with very specific regs. Our regulations have not gone that way and are way to generalized (e.g. 3 pike over 63cm). So, I’m just fine with trying a slot sized limit on a lake like Gull. We certainly could not make it much worse than were it is now headed.
Seems to have gotten quiet for some in here. Maybe they are in shock that we are actually talking and I’m agreeing on some points. That or they just don’t give a [insert expletive here]
P.S. Agree on other species and more reasonable and sustainable limits.
|
03-27-2018, 09:26 AM
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,432
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSR Fisher
If 50 bucks for a license is too much too pay, I can't help you man. You're right, the government loves to spend. But they are criminally underfunding resource development like hunting & fishing.
Let me get this straight, we want SRD / F&W to fix things, right? But they say they don't have enough resources. So lets just wave our magic wands then, or copy Saskatchewans regulations because they seem to have it figured out right? Wrong. The provinces water bodies are nowhere near comparable and its not like we can suddenly create 1000 more fishable bodies of water in this province to satisfy the demand.
To hit on a few of your complaints:
16 year olds spend more than 50 bucks on random junk all the time, if they can't pony up the cost of a flat of beer for a year-long license then they need to pick a different sport.
Unemployed people need to worry about getting employed, not going out and hammering some walleye.
Alberta licenses are very, very cheap. Increasing it 2X would not make a dent in 99% of the anglers pocket books.
Now, we have to make sure the money is spent properly which is a whole other battle. But the first step has to be made and that begins with us anglers realizing that we need to do more to protect our resource, and not just with cash but with information and discussion.
|
If an increase goes directly to say a night and day stocking program do what we have today, I'm all for it.
|
03-27-2018, 01:31 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: pigeon lake
Posts: 1,566
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ab_hunter
According to Dr. Michael Sullivan and his "Carrot Hypothesis," "Pigeon Lake, Lac Ste Anne, Wolf Lake are showing big walleye and satisfied anglers!"
Wow, these biologists are clueless. Hate to say it.
If retention of 1 pike over 63cm was their idea from the beginning, then it also shows their incompetence as many lakes which held that regulation are now 0 retention.
Slot sizes should be utilized in more Alberta Lakes, it may not work for all lakes, but it is a better option then the direction we are headed in.
Also in my opinion walleye lakes in Alberta that contain 90 percent walleye 49cm and under are not indicative of a healthy walleye population.
|
buck lake comes to mind as most under 49cm.
|
03-27-2018, 01:43 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,068
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSR Fisher
The problem in Alberta is simple: Too many anglers not enough water.
|
Oh man, I just couldn't have summed it up any better. This is Alberta fishing in a nutshell.
|
03-27-2018, 07:13 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 181
|
|
How about 2 different prices for fishing license?
If you want to C&R then you pay the 26 and change we pay now
If you would like to fry some fish then you pay the above-mentioned $50
|
03-27-2018, 07:24 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 553
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by coors04
How about 2 different prices for fishing license?
If you want to C&R then you pay the 26 and change we pay now
If you would like to fry some fish then you pay the above-mentioned $50
|
How does throwing more money at it change it? C&R anglers kill more than their share too! Mortality rates can be every bit as high in my opinion as catch & keep especially in winter when walleye & perch tend to go deeper and do not have the ability to burp off air while being brought up.
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:58 AM.
|