Garbarge Fish Index Survey of 2023

[litwin]

I finally got fed up enough and took a hard look at these Fish Index Surveys the Alberta government conducts, and it turns out they are garbage science.

The basis of these survey methods comes from Quebec and Ontario, where fish populations can recover in a couple of years after netting. As everyone here knows, our lakes do not produce fish like the ones out east. So why are they using a kill survey method that reduces fish populations in a lake?

This has been going on for more than 20 years! There is no justification for the government to spend thousands on killing more than 6000 fish a year when there are better, non-kill methods.

The biologists in this province continue to defend this stupid practice even as the rest of North American biologists are embracing new technologies. There are better ways, and if you want to have the government stop this practice, you need to contact your local government representative.

I support the MyCatch/Angler Atlas method of holding tournaments on lakes where you want to survey a fish population. They can target a species and get even better data with a catch-and-release tournament. This Canadian company is being invited to places all over North America because they have a proven method to do population surveys better and without killing fish.

I created a video that breaks down what I researched and discovered.

https://youtu.be/K0rVg7bTh7M

[Smoky buck]

Definitely don’t support Albertans method of netting surveys especially as often as they do the on waters with little to no retention

[mapleleafman3]

It's a bit funny that there is the same situation in Lake Mille Lacs, Minnesota. They are doing the same netting surveys (and a couple other methods) and people are saying the survey doesn't match what people are seeing on the lake. I see the same thing on lakes i normally fish that have been surveyed. The survey doesn't match what I'm catching.

It's obvious, netting surveys are not the way to go.

Link to the Mille Lacs article, if your curious
http://targetwalleye.com/the-truth-a...lacs-walleyes/

[Sundancefisher]

With technology these days I would think one should be able to use visual transects using underwater drones and count. Would need to calibrate to current techniques but would think over time it should work.

AI breakthroughs can even be used to count fish off of videos.

Then going forward it’s zero kill sampling.

You are correct however…. Potentially killing 6000 breeding sized fish would impact populations going forward.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

With technology these days I would think one should be able to use visual transects using underwater drones and count. Would need to calibrate to current techniques but would think over time it should work.

AI breakthroughs can even be used to count fish off of videos.

Then going forward it’s zero kill sampling.

You are correct however…. Potentially killing 6000 breeding sized fish would impact populations going forward.

I assume it’s the age class part of the count why they are not going with electronic

But there is still electro shock as a non kill option

[AlbertanGP]

Originally Posted by mapleleafman3

It's a bit funny that there is the same situation in Lake Mille Lacs, Minnesota. They are doing the same netting surveys (and a couple other methods) and people are saying the survey doesn't match what people are seeing on the lake. I see the same thing on lakes i normally fish that have been surveyed. The survey doesn't match what I'm catching.

It's obvious, netting surveys are not the way to go.

Link to the Mille Lacs article, if your curious
http://targetwalleye.com/the-truth-a...lacs-walleyes/

Fall Index Nettings can be a useful tool in researching a body of water. But it always helps to have some context when looking at them. I'll give an example.

Snipe Lake is a well-known walleye lake near me. I've fished it lots and caught a lot of big fish out of it. I call it the Cereal Bowl...it has zero structure other than bottom transitions. The fish are nomadic and wander around constantly in search of food. Even when it's producing, you can go hours without a fish. But if someone catches one hang on because a pod is coming through and a few will likely be caught in rapid succession....you get the idea.

I happened across the biologists that completed the Fall 2023 survey on Snipe while fishing in Northern B.C. recently. They were gushing about how there was such an insane number of walleye in the lake and there were plans to double the limit to two fish in the upcoming regulations. Sounds great. A real success story from when the walleye were almost extirpated (read the 2014 F.I.N. report where they claimed stocking had failed due to poor numbers).

Here's the rub. No one can catch a fish on Snipe this year. I know sticks that have fished it for years and spend 20-30 days on it every winter that are getting skunked more often than not. There's been maybe 2-3 nice fish posted on social media all winter when it's usually every weekend. And the lake apparently is getting pressured harder than ever this year, so it's not like people aren't trying (I haven't even bothered fishing it due to reports from friends). Does this sound like a lake that should move to a two fish limit and the commensurate spike in pressure that will come with it?

So why the discrepancy? You have a bunch of tunnel-vision biologists applying techniques from typical walleye waters where the fish are structure-oriented to a population that is nomadic. It's like trying to compare Lake of the Woods walleye to Lake Winnipeg or Lake Erie walleye...doesn't work. Some years they are going to get "lucky" and have a pod run through their nets suggesting to them the fish are crawling everywhere, as apparently happened this Fall (keep in mind this is only 8 sample nets for 24 hours or less on a 4200 ha lake). Other years they won't be so "lucky" and they may not come across the fish, leading them to surmise the population is doomed as occurred in 2014.

[Bushleague]

Originally Posted by mapleleafman3

It's a bit funny that there is the same situation in Lake Mille Lacs, Minnesota. They are doing the same netting surveys (and a couple other methods) and people are saying the survey doesn't match what people are seeing on the lake. I see the same thing on lakes i normally fish that have been surveyed. The survey doesn't match what I'm catching.

It's obvious, netting surveys are not the way to go.

Link to the Mille Lacs article, if your curious
http://targetwalleye.com/the-truth-a...lacs-walleyes/

At some point in the last decade, SRD has claimed that recruitment is low in pretty much every lake in my area... but to date I have never experienced a single year where there was a shortage of hammer handles in any of them.

If these low recruitment concerns were well founded, at least to my logic, you would eventually hit a few season where it became obvious that an upcoming age class is in short suply. At least in my areas, with the lakes I fish, I have yet to see this actually happen... but still the reports continually claim its a real thing.

The funny thing is that the same reports generally show the current population to be healthy. You'd think after enough years of them claiming that the current population is stable, but recruitment is concerningly low, they would start to question the validity of their information?

[pikergolf]

I had a bio once tell me a southern res. I was fishing was to sterile to produce a lot of fish. I asked her what her definition of sterile was. She explained to me that because the water in the lake was turned over 8 times during irrigation season that weeds could not grow. I asked if she had ever been on the lake, no she had not. I offered to take her out for a ride which she declined and when I told her my observations (the lake was loaded with cabbage and I was averaging 40 pike a day per angler that fall) I could tell she did not believe me. Some get something in their head because someone told them and they will not be shaken. I was a little peaved that she would not come out for a ride and have a look, as the lake was very healthy and produced a ton of fish.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

I had a bio once tell me a southern res. I was fishing was to sterile to produce a lot of fish. I asked her what her definition of sterile was. She explained to me that because the water in the lake was turned over 8 times during irrigation season that weeds could not grow. I asked if she had ever been on the lake, no she had not. I offered to take her out for a ride which she declined and when I told her my observations (the lake was loaded with cabbage and I was averaging 40 pike a day per angler that fall) I could tell she did not believe me. Some get something in their head because someone told them and they will not be shaken. I was a little peaved that she would not come out for a ride and have a look, as the lake was very healthy and produced a ton of fish.

Met my fair of both fisheries and wildlife biologists over the years. Some think they know it all and think everyone is clueless. Others who are passionate about what they do and like to explore/look into things so they truly understand the population they are responsible for managing. Unfortunately the first kind won’t consider what anyone without a degree says unless you are backed by someone with one

Unfortunately a lot of the ones with passion get frustrated working for government sectors and loose their passion or leave the latter is their for life because it’s about ego

[Sitkaspruce]

Having worked with biologist (and other professionals as well) most of my working life, I have observed a few changes:

- older bio's are hands on types, they started with school that has them out in the field, learning. Then they worked from the ground up, working their way up through the ranks and learned from others as well as applying what they think would work. They used the tools that were on hand to make the best "guess" of what was going on at the time. They did the best they could with what they had, including a budget.

- now days, most of them are book taught and a lot of them are more interested in get carpel tunnel running computer program after program than getting mud on their boots/waders. There is a butt load of programs out there that will tell them what they want to here/see. AND, the ones that do want to do the real work in the field get hamstrung by both the book taught and the politicians who have cut their budget to peanuts.

It seems that the good ones have been scooped up by private industry and the book taught ones are working for the government, making all the decisions that will affect all of us down the road. There is some good ones still left, but most of them are close to retirement.

They pump them out of the schools with huge debts and no direction on what to do. This is for a lot of professionals; book taught and no real world experience.

Cheers

SS

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by Sitkaspruce

Having worked with biologist (and other professionals as well) most of my working life, I have observed a few changes:

- older bio's are hands on types, they started with school that has them out in the field, learning. Then they worked from the ground up, working their way up through the ranks and learned from others as well as applying what they think would work. They used the tools that were on hand to make the best "guess" of what was going on at the time. They did the best they could with what they had, including a budget.

- now days, most of them are book taught and a lot of them are more interested in get carpel tunnel running computer program after program than getting mud on their boots/waders. There is a butt load of programs out there that will tell them what they want to here/see. AND, the ones that do want to do the real work in the field get hamstrung by both the book taught and the politicians who have cut their budget to peanuts.

It seems that the good ones have been scooped up by private industry and the book taught ones are working for the government, making all the decisions that will affect all of us down the road. There is some good ones still left, but most of them are close to retirement.

They pump them out of the schools with huge debts and no direction on what to do. This is for a lot of professionals; book taught and no real world experience.

Cheers

SS

I would agree with pretty much everything in this post but there is still some good new ones but not many

[Salavee]

While I concur with the OP on the gist of his remarks, I can also say there may still be a better way of getting proper surveys done,apart from relying on the Govt.
Back in the 80's, when the Western Walleye Council was formed, part of our objective was to start C&R Tournaments. The main goal was to raise enough $$ to conduct Walleye population studies annually on Lakes identified by the Council. A Private firm was hired by the Council to do the electo shock method and compile the final age class reports. All of this was done in conjuction with
The AB Gov't Mgr of Sport Fishing . This arrangement worked well and four Lakes were done over the course of the Councils existance. Like most good things, it worked well until it didn't.

[wind drift]

Another self-appointed “expert” angler influencer who isn’t interested in providing a balanced perspective, but rather stirring controversy for click bait and self promotion. If there was any intent to be truly objective and informative, the view of an Alberta professional fisheries biologist would be sought and conveyed in the piece.

Ignore.

[litwin]

Did you watch the video? Nope, argue on facts, not ignorance.

Originally Posted by wind drift

Another self-appointed “expert” angler influencer who isn’t interested in providing a balanced perspective, but rather stirring controversy for click bait and self promotion. If there was any intent to be truly objective and informative, the view of an Alberta professional fisheries biologist would be sought and conveyed in the piece.

Ignore.

[FlyTheory]

Originally Posted by wind drift

Another self-appointed “expert” angler influencer who isn’t interested in providing a balanced perspective, but rather stirring controversy for click bait and self promotion. If there was any intent to be truly objective and informative, the view of an Alberta professional fisheries biologist would be sought and conveyed in the piece.

Ignore.

No I totally agree. Even the nuances of how we gill net in the industry (I’m not govnt or involved in any of this) - frequency of checking gill nets (every 2 hours vs every 24 hours) increases survivability. The report used to demonstrate FIN and FSI in the survey shows numbers of 1-2% direct mortality, which are most likely correct. The photos shown at the beginning of the video totally misrepresent what gill netting is.

And angling surveys, sure, great. Who even wants to dedicate time to a meticulous program? Accuracy matters, and the general public doesn’t even care enough to do a program like this. Totally unrealistic.

2x on ignore.

[litwin]

1-2% total lake mortality! Not per net.

Once again, if people actually watch the video, "angling surveys" are now done using modern technology and tournament style. They are no longer just asking an angler what they catch. But using photo catch release format.

The ignorance is strong with this one as well.

Originally Posted by FlyTheory

No I totally agree. Even the nuances of how we gill net in the industry (I’m not govnt or involved in any of this) - frequency of checking gill nets (every 2 hours vs every 24 hours) increases survivability. The report used to demonstrate FIN and FSI in the survey shows numbers of 1-2% direct mortality, which are most likely correct. The photos shown at the beginning of the video totally misrepresent what gill netting is.

And , sure, great. Who even wants to dedicate time to a meticulous program? Accuracy matters, and the general public doesn’t even care enough to do a program like this. Totally unrealistic.

2x on ignore.

[I’d rather be outdoors]

Technological solutions are the answer. I always found it odd they gill net given our waters are generally less productive than the rest of Canada and given how few in number/how restricted they are…

Don’t hold your breath, they’ve been mismanaged for many many years. It’s a good thing more people are taking notice.

[pikeman06]

Did Snapfisher get the boot or what? How dare you all criticize our beloved alberta fisheries crew!!! I'm been saying this for years. Send a bunch of purple haired college girls out every few years to assess our lakes in the fall when fish are stacked in select areas and the lakes are turning over and changing, and that's the state of the fishery. PERIOD. Don't consult with the guys that spend lifetimes and even generations fishing these waters. They got the little piece of paper that says they are experts in the field and thats the end of it. Do they ever ask for help or input? Rarely. If any of us diehards ever tagged along on these fall netting forays I'm pretty sure we could steer them in the right direction to get an accurate assessment of our beleaguered fisheries.

[timsesink]

Lesser Slave is a great example of this. A tiny slot limit for walleye with literally every single fish caught larger than it over 4 days of angling with PLENTY of walleye caught.

Then there's other lakes crawling with pike and 0 retention. It makes no sense...

[Curtsyneil]

Originally Posted by timsesink

Lesser Slave is a great example of this. A tiny slot limit for walleye with literally every single fish caught larger than it over 4 days of angling with PLENTY of walleye caught.

Then there's other lakes crawling with pike and 0 retention. It makes no sense...

Yeah I would have liked a slot limit on slave lake the same as calling lake. Then they change the pike limit on slave to 0 from 3 over 55cm so they jumped to a 0 retention from 3 how that makes sense is beyond me and frankly makes no sense at all. I really dont think they have any clue on how to manage waters in Alberta. I bet in a few years there will be proper changes to slave lake and they will make improvements on there regulations and proper slot limit. People just gotta let there voices be heard specially the locals. The reason I say this is cause I know buck lakes slot size was brought in by the town and cabin owners wanting walleye to be able to be caught and kept. So it’s just not the government making these regulations on these lakes.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by pikeman06

Did Snapfisher get the boot or what? How dare you all criticize our beloved alberta fisheries crew!!!

Never said I liked our fisheries or agreed with it. I'm just not negative on every single thing like you are. Of course you know best... LOL!

[I’d rather be outdoors]

I’ll give some credit where due: a slot in some of the southern reservoirs was a move in the right direction. Still plenty room for improvement both for stocking of forage and management of the fishery (PCR comes to mind as only 1 example). Using tech (instead of netting) indexing would be another good step in the right direction.

[Fish Jesus]

Most scientists are very poor at what they do.

A small minority are excellent, just like everything else.

Never confuse authority for expertise.

Theyre rarely related.

[wind drift]

Originally Posted by litwin

Did you watch the video? Nope, argue on facts, not ignorance.

Yes, I did. Regretably. There’s no point in me arguing with you. I’m not an expert. Nor are you. The meaningful “arguments” about things like this take place in the scientific literature, with peer review. Where it belongs. Where there’s a process.

By not interviewing a practicing government fisheries bio to try and gain understanding, you reveal that what you want is not knowledge and education, but controversy and views. And to be validated. I’m old and wise enough to know who to listen to and seek knowledge from, and who to ignore.

[litwin]

Originally Posted by wind drift

Yes, I did. Regretably. There’s no point in me arguing with you. I’m not an expert. Nor are you. The meaningful “arguments” about things like this take place in the scientific literature, with peer review. Where it belongs. Where there’s a process.

By not interviewing a practicing government fisheries bio to try and gain understanding, you reveal that what you want is not knowledge and education, but controversy and views. And to be validated. I’m old and wise enough to know who to listen to and seek knowledge from, and who to ignore.

That is correct. Angling Atlas/MyCatch is doing peer-review science. I have talked to the owner, who is a biologist https://www.linkedin.com/in/sean-sim...alSubdomain=ca and talked to him about how they are working with scientists around North America.

They are conducting research and using methods that are pioneering the new techniques for catch and release indexing, This is why they are being invited all over North America to hold tournaments for research purposes.