Proposed Regulation Changes For Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Heron

For me there is a substantial difference between the quality of the recreation in catching a 6" trout that weighs a couple of ounces to even a 16" fish that may weigh a pound or pound and a half. I am not talking about trophies. The reproduction thing is not really an issue as ther are very few lakes in Alberta where true trout can spawn. Quality is an opinion but limiting out on 10" fish is not very good quality. Not very good eating either. A young deer certainly is good eating.

I hear you, just seems a rule that you can't take a fish unless it's more than half a meter long is a little too restrictive, as is the single fish limit. Though I guess if you are lucky enough to catch a fish that big you only need one. Heck, my home river is already closed most of the year, C&R much of the rest. I can take two fish over 35 cm per day 2 months of the year. I guess I'm just a little (too?) sensitive to the boys who want big ones deciding how it should be. There are varying views of what constitutes "quality". Size is not the only measure.

Thanks.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I hear you, just seems a rule that you can't take a fish unless it's more than half a meter long is a little too restrictive, as is the single fish limit. Though I guess if you are lucky enough to catch a fish that big you only need one. Heck, my home river is already closed most of the year, C&R much of the rest. I can take two fish over 35 cm per day 2 months of the year. I guess I'm just a little (too?) sensitive to the boys who want big ones deciding how it should be. There are varying views of what constitutes "quality". Size is not the only measure.

Thanks.

Fair enough point of view. However if the choice is between catching a bunch of smaller trout and 1 - 20 inch rainbow that is almost twice the weight of the current limit of stocked rainbows or catching nothing...what is there to decide. If most of the rainbows currently get harvested and there is nothing left to catch for food or fun...where is the value in that? Unfortunately we don't have a conveyor belt of stocked trout dropping into the lake to replace each trout as they are removed...that would be sweet but unfortunately there are significant costs and limitations to our stocking programs in Alberta that stop us from ever seeing that happen.

I am like you...I often like catching any sized fish...but after a while you do get bored of catching small fish over and over again. Just human nature. The majority of stocked lakes are small trout fisheries. In this proposed fishery...those smaller fish remain...but you have a chance at bigger fish. The smaller fish don't stay small forever...they grow and eventually achieve harvesting size. After a few years of initial start up and establishment of the new regulations...there will be a constant stream of keepers growing into range to harvest. Rather than hoping above all to catch something...anything in a lake that has been harvested all year like a vacuum...we can hope to catch some big ones amongst all the fun small ones. Then the one you keep is worth 5-6 small ones so even if you only catch one in every two outings...you are no worse off. Plus the likelihood of leaving skunked...is significantly lessened.

[ADIDAFish]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I mistakenly put this on probably the wrong thread before. Should have been here:

"Disagree with the petition. Trophy hunters should try less accessable lakes, or have regulations changed for those less accessable lakes. Why would you want to restrict fishing opportunities in those lakes that are heavily used and easily accessable? Let the campers and families and tourists have their crack at some fish there. It's like cutting back fishing opportunities and restricting fishing seasons to grow giants in the Glenmore reservoir. Just the wrong body of water to do it on. "

Also, wondering if the up and down nature of the lake levels have been taken into consideration. Would as many of those giants actually develop as you seem to think?

Thanks

If Glenmore reservoir was a stocked trout fishery then I wish they had this at Glenmore! Then my friend's kid wouldn't get skunked everytime they go and he would be more into fishing. A delayed harvest for a stocked lake is a great idea!

Signed and I got two more to sign it as well.

[Sundancefisher]

Link to the petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/dekkbeed/petition.html

180!!!

AWESOME!!!!!!

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Fair enough point of view. However if the choice is between catching a bunch of smaller trout and 1 - 20 inch rainbow that is almost twice the weight of the current limit of stocked rainbows or catching nothing...what is there to decide.

Ah, but you are a better fisherman than me. LOL You have the choice of a lot of smaller ones or fewer big ones on your fishing day. My fishing day more-often-than-not looks like one or two smaller ones, and NO big ones. If I could only take home fish bigger than 50 cm I guess I'd have to classify myself as a non-voluntary catch and release fisherman. LOL

What about ONE fish between 30 and 50 cm and the other two have to be over 50? Then at least I could still take home one fish and prove to my wife I'm a man.... sorta

[fishpro]

One thing I should point out is how the size limits will affect the size of fish caught, as many people believe that they will not be able to catch the larger fish. In many cases with size limits, there are numerous fish in the size range up to the size limit, but since you can keep the fish over the size limit there are far fewer fish above it. Whatever the size limit is, that will be the size that determines what fish are near it in size.

Essentially what this means is the following: Currently there is a 30cm size limit, meaning that many many fish will be caught in the 20-30 cm range, while a 35 cm fish will be much harder to catch. Now if the size limit changes to 50 cm, fishermen will easily be able to catch fish in the 40-50 cm range, with a 55 cm fish being harder to catch. In other words, no matter what the size limit is, it will be about the same difficulty to catch a legal size fish.

The only reason it is difficult to catch larger fish now is because there are so few of them, it is not a matter of the fisherman's abilities. I have seen this in more than one lake, both with rainbows and with walleye.

[huntsfurfish]

OK lets try to put it another way.

If they stock 100000 trout and 94 % is removed early the same year they are put in you have 6000 trout left to catch during the rest of the year, not counting the larger an or natural fish. (12" trout)

A couple years down the road (and the worst part of this plan would be the wait for the first year implementation to reach harvestable size) 3- 5 years.

Now the reward begins. The first years stocking reaches the 20" size. Read 100000 20" fish. The next years stocking reaches 20" the following year(100000) and so on.

Plus you have fun with the undersized fish as well.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Ah, but you are a better fisherman than me. LOL You have the choice of a lot of smaller ones or fewer big ones on your fishing day. My fishing day more-often-than-not looks like one or two smaller ones, and NO big ones. If I could only take home fish bigger than 50 cm I guess I'd have to classify myself as a non-voluntary catch and release fisherman. LOL

What about ONE fish between 30 and 50 cm and the other two have to be over 50? Then at least I could still take home one fish and prove to my wife I'm a man.... sorta

As mentioned many different ways...you can't catch the small ones after the majority of them get harvested...so how is this any different from your perspective. With the harvest reduced to 1 from 3...but the sizes way up...your odds actually improve under this new plan.

Bullshead has found that guys with the same misconception as you were proven wrong and the meat guys are actually very happy with the same regulations on Bullshead.

I can see this regulation will work very well for you but unfortunately you have not seen it in action. Sometimes unknown change can be troubling.

Figure this however...if the petition works and for some very strange unexpected reason the new regulations are not a benefit after 5 years...you can always do a petition to change it right back. Nothing is every fixed in stone IMHO.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Fact...Catch rates from Kananaskis Lakes for instance. It shows 94% of all trout stocked get harvested in the year they are stocked. That is at 12 inches. That means instant depletion of the resource upon initial stocking. Cheers Sun

Sundance, Can you show me where you got this fact because I'm a little confused? You are saying that it's no fun only catching 12" Rainbow trout but according to the stocking reports Kananaskis Lakes have not been stocked with Rainbow trout since 2002. I'm sure that there's a logical explanation but......

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Sundance, Can you show me where you got this fact because I'm a little confused? You are saying that it's no fun only catching 12" Rainbow trout but according to the stocking reports Kananaskis Lakes have not been stocked with Rainbow trout since 2002. I'm sure that there's a logical explanation but......

Review the data at the start of the thread.

12 inchers get stocked. 94% get removed in the first year. They used to stock smaller trout but survival was low. 12 inchers are a lot more expensive to stock and to remove them immediately leaves little value after they get harvested right away.

These lakes were stocked in the past and it did not work out so well. I actually have first hand knowledge on fisheries studies here.

[jusfloatin]

Sundancerfisher can you help with a link showing when the upper was last stocked as Hunterdave posted I too can only find that it's last stocking of anything was in 2005.

I am also not in agreement with you asking people who do not fish this lake to sign a petition to make a significant rule change that will impact those that do fish this lake.
I guess it's the idea that when these people sign up is it for the right reason or is it just to stir up the pot because it's a slow day for them in BC.

This petition should be placed and made available for signatures in the area that is about to be affected not World Wide Web.

[goldscud]

Stocking info from Mywildalberta

2008 Upper Kan 10,700 Cutts 6cm

2009 Lower Kan 20,000 Cutts 18cm

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by jusfloatin

Sundancerfisher can you help with a link showing when the upper was last stocked as Hunterdave posted I too can only find that it's last stocking of anything was in 2005.

I am also not in agreement with you asking people who do not fish this lake to sign a petition to make a significant rule change that will impact those that do fish this lake.
I guess it's the idea that when these people sign up is it for the right reason or is it just to stir up the pot because it's a slow day for them in BC.

This petition should be placed and made available for signatures in the area that is about to be affected not World Wide Web.

Fair enough statement that you only will comment on water you fish. However...I strongly suspect that as with the improvements at Bullshead...once Kananaskis is improved...it will draw fishermen from all over Alberta. People that never considered fishing here will come. I never fished Bullshead until the regs changed...then WOW...did I ever have a great time. Those guys that live down there are now truly blessed with a great place to fish.

My only thought to you is that as a resident of Alberta, and a member of the angling community...do you not have a say in how we handle fisheries management...especially if your signature could help change things for the better at one lake?

There is lots of paranoia that I see being cleaned up by the facts and previous history at Bullshead. Those guys had a massive uphill battle. At least we have the facts and the history now to quote.

Regardless of whether you sign or not...I think it is great you care enough to comment and provide an opinion.

Cheers

Sun

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by goldscud

Stocking info from Mywildalberta

2008 Upper Kan 10,700 Cutts 6cm

2009 Lower Kan 20,000 Cutts 18cm

Thanks for posting... I did not have time to track down the details for HunterDave. My understanding is that the lakes are stock every second year with Cutts.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

As mentioned many different ways...you can't catch the small ones after the majority of them get harvested...so how is this any different from your perspective. .

Well if that is the case then I can see changing my perspective on this issue. If they are stocked in early spring and pretty much fished out by July then yes, some changes probably need to be made. Is that the case though?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Well if that is the case then I can see changing my perspective on this issue. If they are stocked in early spring and pretty much fished out by July then yes, some changes probably need to be made. Is that the case though?

Based upon the earlier post...94% of the cutts harvested were from same year stocking. These lakes only get stocked every second year. Fishing success tapers off dramatically at all stocked lakes. Lakes like Mt Lorette ponds are actually harvested out completely within 2 weeks of stocking. You want to see something amazing...watch the row upon row of adult males yarding out 10 inch after 10 inch stocked rainbow. I heard many go home only to come back for more...until they are all gone. It is such a waste not to let mother nature fatten them up before harvesting. As mentioned earlier...we might as well just allocate each license the right to pick up their fish directly from Sam Livingstone and save the transportation costs.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by goldscud

Stocking info from Mywildalberta

2008 Upper Kan 10,700 Cutts 6cm

2009 Lower Kan 20,000 Cutts 18cm

Thanks goldscud. Additional info:

2009 Upper Kan 14,000 Cutts 19cm, and

2010 Upper Kan 14.010 Cutts 30cm

I had already had a look for the info as I wanted to understand the facts about the petition, for a start, what was being stocked and when it was stocked.

There have been no Rainbow Trout stocked in Kananaskis Lakes since 2002 so any smaller sized ones caught must be spawned. If the Rainbows are spawning naturally, why would you want to keep the larger fish that are reproducing?

In 2010 Upper Kan was stocked in June but in 2008 and 2009 the lake(s) were stocked in September and October. That's as far back as I looked but you'd think that the fish stocked later in the season would stand a better chance of not getting caught and would disperse around the lake. They'd also have a significant amount of time to grow in size before getting caught.

I'd still like to know where the "fact" that 94% of the stocked fish get caught right away comes from?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by jusfloatin

Sundancerfisher can you help with a link showing when the upper was last stocked as Hunterdave posted I too can only find that it's last stocking of anything was in 2005.

Here ya go. Lakes are listed alphabetically. Look for at L for Lower Kan and U for Upper Kan.

http://www.mywildalberta.com/documen...eport-2008.pdf

http://www.mywildalberta.com/documen...eport-2009.pdf

http://www.mywildalberta.com/documen...eport-2010.pdf

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by goldscud

Stocking info from Mywildalberta

2008 Upper Kan 10,700 Cutts 6cm

2009 Lower Kan 20,000 Cutts 18cm

Further to my last reply, more thorough info about the stocking of Kan Lakes can be found on page 2, post #40 of this thread.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Thanks goldscud. Additional info:

2009 Upper Kan 14,000 Cutts 19cm, and

2010 Upper Kan 14.010 Cutts 30cm

I had already had a look for the info as I wanted to understand the facts about the petition, for a start, what was being stocked and when it was stocked.

There have been no Rainbow Trout stocked in Kananaskis Lakes since 2002 so any smaller sized ones caught must be spawned. If the Rainbows are spawning naturally, why would you want to keep the larger fish that are reproducing?

In 2010 Upper Kan was stocked in June but in 2008 and 2009 the lake(s) were stocked in September and October. That's as far back as I looked but you'd think that the fish stocked later in the season would stand a better chance of not getting caught and would disperse around the lake. They'd also have a significant amount of time to grow in size before getting caught.

I'd still like to know where the "fact" that 94% of the stocked fish get caught right away comes from?

Post 10

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Post 10

Pikester's post? I didn't see anything in it to explain anything?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Pikester's post? I didn't see anything in it to explain anything?

Sorry...I saw 10 but I see it was 40 for a post number. I missread that but 94% was referring to trout that were just stocked and were harvested that year. We don't have total numbers of trout removed as it is too difficult to collect the information on a lake this size. I will gather some additional information from F&W for you on some actual data.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Sorry...I saw 10 but I see it was 40 for a post number. I missread that but 94% was referring to trout that were just stocked and were harvested that year. We don't have total numbers of trout removed as it is too difficult to collect the information on a lake this size. I will gather some additional information from F&W for you on some actual data.

That's okay, don't bother searching for it. I've already found the info on the estimated survival rates and like you said, the total number of trout removed would be difficult to figure out.

GO! CANADA! GO!

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

GO! CANADA! GO!

woot woot i'll sign up for that
kick their azz kids!!!!!!!!!!

[Sundancefisher]

One other thing to clarify.

Although one person posted that there is a plan to stabilize both lakes, at present, there is no plan to stabilize the water level in UKL. However, there is an initiative currently under way that will hopefully result in the water level being stabilized in LKL. If successful, this would likely result in a tripling of productivity due to re-establishment of a productive littoral zone. In conjunction with the proposed regulation change, this would create one helluva of an even better quality fishery, while still permitting the harvest-oriented anglers to harvest fish that were over the minimum size limit.

[Sundancefisher]

Another point highlight.

In 2010, the catch rate in Upper Kananaskis Lake was 1.0 fish/hour -- over 7 times higher than it was in 1983 -- despite the fact that anglers are supposedly now hampered in catching fish by no longer being permitted to use bait. Furthermore, the average size of the fish caught in 1983 was much smaller than in 2010.

This is clearly evident by looking at the size distribution of the catches in the gillnetting poster in Post 40, which shows the size distribution of the rainbow trout gillnetted in 1983. Most of the rainbows caught in 1983 were very small, recently stocked fish measuring <20 cm (<8 inches). A couple of the main reasons for the low catch rate and small size of fish in 1983 were the liberal bag limit and absence of any size limit. Furthermore, although relatively few fish were released in 1983, those that were would have had a much lower survival rate than in 2010, owing to the fact that the hooking mortality rate for bait-caught fish is about 10 times higher than for fish caught on artificial lures.

The increase in the catch rate in 2010 likely reflects the combined effects of the 30-cm minimum size limit, reduced bag limit and higher catchability of cutthroat trout. Add to this the huge (20-fold) increase in the proportion of sport fish in the catch and the greatly reduced density of suckers in UKL, largely due to predation of suckers by bull trout, and one has to wonder how it is possible for some anglers to continue to claim that we "destroyed" the fishery in UKL when we stocked bull trout and implemented the bait ban, 30-cm minimum size limit and reduced bag limit. If they think that a higher catch rate for larger fish amounts to a "destroyed" fishery, then I guess that the proposed regulations will "devastate" it with even more fish to be caught and those that are keep are of an even greater size than ever before.

Essentially...look at the past data as an experiment proving what the future holds.

In the past...with liberal limits and not size restrictions...catch rates were low and sizes were tiny.

Then limits were reduced to 3 and size restrictions was 12 inches. Catch rates went up dramatically and the average retained size also increased.

Now look forward in time to a 1 fish limit but 20 inches. Now even more fish to catch and an even larger fish to retain. One twenty inch fish blows three 12 inch fish out of the water.

We are moving towards great fishing in UKL and LKL. I can hardly wait.

Sun

[Andrzej]

I've used to take my family to upper lakes for not sophisticated but enjoyable catch and keep rainbows and have this way introduced my boys to pleasure of fishing before some pseudo scientists decided that it should be no bait no stocking lake fishing with bull trout in it.
I think that this one closed the best opportunities to harvest rainbow trout from mountain lake for casual fisherman and their kids.
Promoting Kananaskis Country, drawing hundreds of peoples and their kids to visit and enjoy catch and keep fishery was good for creating passion for this area.
Closing this fisheries for selected trophy anglers further will make less desirable destination for families and limiting your keep to 50 cm is like selling White Tail licence for 170 + point only.
Go to Nakoda Lodge pay 20 $ a day for trophy fishing and leave those pristine mountain lakes with hungry small trout to enjoy by families and to introduce new generations to fishing.

Andrew

[jts1]

I hit Nakoda Lodge often The cash is worth it to be the only guy on the lake for me. I think there should be more lakes that require a fee to enter.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Andrzej

I've used to take my family to upper lakes for not sophisticated but enjoyable catch and keep rainbows and have this way introduced my boys to pleasure of fishing before some pseudo scientists decided that it should be no bait no stocking lake fishing with bull trout in it.
I think that this one closed the best opportunities to harvest rainbow trout from mountain lake for casual fisherman and their kids.
Promoting Kananaskis Country, drawing hundreds of peoples and their kids to visit and enjoy catch and keep fishery was good for creating passion for this area.
Closing this fisheries for selected trophy anglers further will make less desirable destination for families and limiting your keep to 50 cm is like selling White Tail licence for 170 + point only.
Go to Nakoda Lodge pay 20 $ a day for trophy fishing and leave those pristine mountain lakes with hungry small trout to enjoy by families and to introduce new generations to fishing.

Andrew

I respect your comments but the facts show fishing catch rates actually improved. Your kids actually catch more trout per day than they did in the 1980's under the new regulations.

The protection of the bull trout has dramatically reduced the sucker population that actually competes with the trout for food.

By your comments...the change to 12 inch rainbows is tantamount to a trophy fishery compares to the lack of any size limit in the past. Calling a 20 inch rainbow a trophy in a lake that grows 30 inch rainbows does not spell out the facts but instead shows you have not necessarily read all the information posted so far.

Plus the new regulations are actually designed to benefit everyone and not be biased to any group. It just makes sense to let mother nature grow the trout rather than eat a small trout stocked 2 days earlier and still full of trout pellets.

If you truly believe your post...you should then demand these regulations as it improves everything you are wanting in a fishery for your kids and future kids.


Link to the petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/dekkbeed/petition.html


A signature from you is a commitment to want to create a better fishery for all kids and adults alike.

[jusfloatin]

Sundancefisher I truly believe that your intended stewardship in this matter is true blue and I applaud you for that.
I also understand that by these regulation changes it would undoubtedly entice more to fish the upper K. simply for the reasons you posted.

With any change there will always be the plus and minus effect, simply by raising the catch size we have affected more than just the fish but what they eat and how much and what size of food they eat. Correct me if I am wrong but even bugs will be affected by this action.
Our attempts at manipulating the system has show in the past to be a hit and miss draw.
Bulls head worked ( I don't know as I have never fished it ) which is great but I am sure it has it problems because of that change.
The upper K is a lot more sensitive to change where damaged caused could take 20 years to recuperate.

I was fortunate to fish the upper K at least 2 dozen times this past summer, in those times I hate to admit it but I was skunked a couple times, other days it was just smallies and then there were a couple of days you only dream of. To me that is fishing, the chance of a big one when buddy next to me hooks a smallie.
If all of those days were to be just big fish days I believe I would grow somewhat tired of that. The chase is a big part of the fun.
If your concerns are leaning more to the fight of the fish go to a lighter rod. Everyone has caught a small fish that made you think you have a whopper on the line only to see you just have a little one that is not about to give up for anything.

These few things will be the immediately affect by those changes.
1 line up to off load and load the boat.
2 parking issues
3 the litter
4 traffic
5 dirty water ( being used as a urinal, 2 stroke motors )
I could go on but I am sure you get my point.

I am sorry but I have no interest in seeing those changes, I fish the upper K for more reasons than the just the fish.
The drive up, the scenery while I fish, the color of the water, the fresh smell of clean air, the low amount of people, the anticipation of a big catch amongst the small unwanted catches by some.

Some have said it is paradise up there and I agree, would you be able to say after these changes.
At this moment I know what I have and I am not prepared to risk it.

For those that have not signed this petition as of yet all I ask of you is that you ask yourself to consider all plus and minus's associated with these proposed changes.

Yes I am being selfish for wanting to keep it as it is.