Eating an Alberta walleye

[deschambault]

For the first time in many years we got to eat a walleye from a southern reservoir this weekend. We caught and ate a legal walleye from Travers reservoir last Saturday. Thanks to F&W for finally opening up several southern reservoirs to a small slot limit retention. Eating the odd fish is still part of the experience.

[Drewski Canuck]

You do not have to be thankful for the privilege of eating a walleye, you have to ask why it has taken so long.

There is an ideology with the Fisheries Biologists that Walleye are not to be eaten. If they wish to dispute this, then they can please explain why it took a Wildrose MLA to organize Town Hall Meetings in Bonnyville and St. Paul to get lakes that had been closed for 20 years to finally be opened to walleye retention.

The lakes from all index netting were very abundant with walleye to the point where there were few perch or pike.

The Bios explained that they wanted representation from at least 5 year classes, or some garbage story like that. From sizes ranging from 6" to 8 Pds, the criteria was met from fisherman experience.

Wildrose sold alot of memberships at those Town Hall meetings as finally someone stood up to the Buerocrats.


Most of the large Southern Reservoirs are for irrigation, not fishing, and can be drawn down to the point where the fish will winterkill. Because of that reality, the limits should be very generous, as the resource is not permanent.


Drewski

[deschambault]

I'm not real grateful, just surprised to see a bit of retention finally allowed on the reservoirs southeast of Calgary. I have asked several COs at Crawling Valley, Newell and Travers over the years why there was total catch and release on walleye and none had a scientific based answer. By the way, unless a dam breaks literally I wouldn't expect to see winterkill in reservoirs 50 to 100+ in depth. All of them produce very large fish who have been there a long time. It was just a nice event, actually getting an Alberta walleye to eat without having to wait for a tag.

[I’d rather be outdoors]

Sad it took them this long to loosen the grip of draconian regulations, but happy it’s finally here. They may one day realize that stocking of a forage base (minnows or rntr) is good to bolster existing populations. One baby step at a time. Slots are a big win.

[Drewski Canuck]

The Southern Alberta Reservoirs have some deep sections, but seeing what droughts year after year did to the reservoirs on the Colorado River system, some down over 200 feet, there is no guarantee that 50 FOW will not be lost to irrigation and Alberta's obligation to flow through so many cubic meters of water per minute to Saskatchewan. Yes, this is a thing.

All the same, the walleye limits can be more generous given the impact on everything else when the population of walleye is booming to the detriment of all other species.

When a walleye is over 8 pounds, it has spawned for about 15 years, and has created hundreds of thousands of offspring. As these fish get older, their eggs are less viable, so why not let limited tags for fish in the 28 " plus range? These large fish eventually die, as has been seen in lakes like Pigeon where there were strict tag numbers. The really old fish just died out over time.

That big fish has done its job spawning, and when dead on the bottom of the lake, has been lost for the fisherman to utilize when it naturally dies off.

So why not tags for big fish at the end of their spawning life?

Drewski

[FlyTheory]

Let us remember how the lakes are now, and see what happens when the lakes are fished for keeps after 5 years. Jury is out if we’re living the good old days, or if they’re in the future.

I think a balance should have been reached between AEP and the local anglers, and a general tag system may be the answer. We’ll see, I’m slightly indifferent to the outcome.

[fish99]

Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck

The Southern Alberta Reservoirs have some deep sections, but seeing what droughts year after year did to the reservoirs on the Colorado River system, some down over 200 feet, there is no guarantee that 50 FOW will not be lost to irrigation and Alberta's obligation to flow through so many cubic meters of water per minute to Saskatchewan. Yes, this is a thing.

All the same, the walleye limits can be more generous given the impact on everything else when the population of walleye is booming to the detriment of all other species.

When a walleye is over 8 pounds, it has spawned for about 15 years, and has created hundreds of thousands of offspring. As these fish get older, their eggs are less viable, so why not let limited tags for fish in the 28 " plus range? These large fish eventually die, as has been seen in lakes like Pigeon where there were strict tag numbers. The really old fish just died out over time.

That big fish has done its job spawning, and when dead on the bottom of the lake, has been lost for the fisherman to utilize when it naturally dies off.

So why not tags for big fish at the end of their spawning life?

Drewski

2x.
by thinning out the walleye there will be enough food for walleye to reach those historical weights that pigeon once had . if walleye feed mid lake like the white fish they would be huge again like the white fish.
walleye need small fish to feed on to get to those plus 10 lb numbers .

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck

The Southern Alberta Reservoirs have some deep sections, but seeing what droughts year after year did to the reservoirs on the Colorado River system, some down over 200 feet, there is no guarantee that 50 FOW will not be lost to irrigation and Alberta's obligation to flow through so many cubic meters of water per minute to Saskatchewan. Yes, this is a thing.

All the same, the walleye limits can be more generous given the impact on everything else when the population of walleye is booming to the detriment of all other species.

When a walleye is over 8 pounds, it has spawned for about 15 years, and has created hundreds of thousands of offspring. As these fish get older, their eggs are less viable, so why not let limited tags for fish in the 28 " plus range? These large fish eventually die, as has been seen in lakes like Pigeon where there were strict tag numbers. The really old fish just died out over time.

That big fish has done its job spawning, and when dead on the bottom of the lake, has been lost for the fisherman to utilize when it naturally dies off.

So why not tags for big fish at the end of their spawning life?

Drewski

My first question would be, why would you want to eat that 25 yr old 8lb+ walleye?

My second question would be, at what point is that prolific spawner no longer considered viable, or capable of 2-3 times the spawning potential of smaller or immature fish? How do you make that call as an angler? Why would you want to?

My third question would be, why would you want to deprive someone else of the opportunity to harvest a trophy fish like that? Anglers complain about the lack of big fish or trophy fish in AB waters, but then want to introduce a limit or a tag for harvesting those big fish? With the "logic" being that it's going to die anyway, so it might as well be today? Makes no sense to me...

[PerchBuster]

Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck

The Southern Alberta Reservoirs have some deep sections, but seeing what droughts year after year did to the reservoirs on the Colorado River system, some down over 200 feet, there is no guarantee that 50 FOW will not be lost to irrigation and Alberta's obligation to flow through so many cubic meters of water per minute to Saskatchewan. Yes, this is a thing.

All the same, the walleye limits can be more generous given the impact on everything else when the population of walleye is booming to the detriment of all other species.

When a walleye is over 8 pounds, it has spawned for about 15 years, and has created hundreds of thousands of offspring. As these fish get older, their eggs are less viable, so why not let limited tags for fish in the 28 " plus range? These large fish eventually die, as has been seen in lakes like Pigeon where there were strict tag numbers. The really old fish just died out over time.

That big fish has done its job spawning, and when dead on the bottom of the lake, has been lost for the fisherman to utilize when it naturally dies off.

So why not tags for big fish at the end of their spawning life?

Drewski

Give this a quick read and see if you still feel the same way. Smaller ones are better table fare imo anyway but to each their own. Those large females may be a lot more vital to the resource than we’ve been lead to believe by our CO’s

https://www.outdoorcanada.ca/why-you...ease-big-fish/

[fordtruckin]

Originally Posted by deschambault

I'm not real grateful, just surprised to see a bit of retention finally allowed on the reservoirs southeast of Calgary. I have asked several COs at Crawling Valley, Newell and Travers over the years why there was total catch and release on walleye and none had a scientific based answer. By the way, unless a dam breaks literally I wouldn't expect to see winterkill in reservoirs 50 to 100+ in depth. All of them produce very large fish who have been there a long time. It was just a nice event, actually getting an Alberta walleye to eat without having to wait for a tag.

So who makes the regulations? I doubt it is the COs and would bet it’s the bios so no big surprise that a CO wouldn’t know the reasons behind such things. People appear not to realize that and expect someone who is not involved in season setting and harvest limits etc.. to have an answer.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by fordtruckin

So who makes the regulations? I doubt it is the COs and would bet it’s the bios so no big surprise that a CO wouldn’t know the reasons behind such things. People appear not to realize that and expect someone who is not involved in season setting and harvest limits etc.. to have an answer.

It's not the CO's who make the regulations. They are there to monitor and protect the resource and nothing else. Neither do the Bios.

Biologists perform the studies that are directed by senior advisors/staff according to resolutions, public consultation (hearings), departmental recommendations and requests from legislators and other interested bodies (like AFGA) for example where they submit resolutions. In any case, the final "list" of what they study (and what they don't) can end up as a recommendation to change limits, seasons, add protections, etc...

Any and All regulation changes to the provincial laws have to be legislated by, you guessed it, the legislators.

So, the government changes the regulations.

The constant blaming the cops or the CO's or the Bio's always makes me laugh. I know you now this in your line of work. It's just worth repeating.

[fordtruckin]

Originally Posted by EZM

It's not the CO's who make the regulations. They are there to monitor and protect the resource and nothing else. Neither do the Bios.

Biologists perform the studies that are directed by senior advisors/staff according to resolutions, public consultation (hearings), departmental recommendations and requests from legislators and other interested bodies (like AFGA) for example where they submit resolutions. In any case, the final "list" of what they study (and what they don't) can end up as a recommendation to change limits, seasons, add protections, etc...

Any and All regulation changes to the provincial laws have to be legislated by, you guessed it, the legislators.

So, the government changes the regulations.

The constant blaming the cops or the CO's or the Bio's always makes me laugh. I know you now this in your line of work. It's just worth repeating.

Definitely not how it works down here. Bios for the most part set everything based off their research. Sure there’s public comment and our commission and legislature but that generally doesn’t effect overall harvest numbers. Our season setting is coming up where they discuss numbers of licenses etc.. and my bio rarely if ever ask my opinion.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck

You do not have to be thankful for the privilege of eating a walleye, you have to ask why it has taken so long.

There is an ideology with the Fisheries Biologists that Walleye are not to be eaten. If they wish to dispute this, then they can please explain why it took a Wildrose MLA to organize Town Hall Meetings in Bonnyville and St. Paul to get lakes that had been closed for 20 years to finally be opened to walleye retention.

The lakes from all index netting were very abundant with walleye to the point where there were few perch or pike.

The Bios explained that they wanted representation from at least 5 year classes, or some garbage story like that. From sizes ranging from 6" to 8 Pds, the criteria was met from fisherman experience.

Wildrose sold alot of memberships at those Town Hall meetings as finally someone stood up to the Buerocrats.


Most of the large Southern Reservoirs are for irrigation, not fishing, and can be drawn down to the point where the fish will winterkill. Because of that reality, the limits should be very generous, as the resource is not permanent.


Drewski

Which southern res. has been drawn down to the point of winter kill other than dam repair?

[Drewski Canuck]

I said "can", not "has". Just look to the Colorado River system to see what successive drought years with required water flow obligations did to their water levels in their dams.

So besides dam repairs that you are aware of, the fish are secondary to irrigation needs and what that may do to water levels.

So, why not make use of the resource?

Drewski

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck

I said "can", not "has". Just look to the Colorado River system to see what successive drought years with required water flow obligations did to their water levels in their dams.

So besides dam repairs that you are aware of, the fish are secondary to irrigation needs and what that may do to water levels.

So, why not make use of the resource?

Drewski

The reservoirs are filled every fall, if there is not enough water to fill them we have far bigger problems than filling reservoirs. I agree walleye can be reduced but what you have put forth is a straw man.

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck

You do not have to be thankful for the privilege of eating a walleye, you have to ask why it has taken so long.

There is an ideology with the Fisheries Biologists that Walleye are not to be eaten. If they wish to dispute this, then they can please explain why it took a Wildrose MLA to organize Town Hall Meetings in Bonnyville and St. Paul to get lakes that had been closed for 20 years to finally be opened to walleye retention.

The lakes from all index netting were very abundant with walleye to the point where there were few perch or pike.

The Bios explained that they wanted representation from at least 5 year classes, or some garbage story like that. From sizes ranging from 6" to 8 Pds, the criteria was met from fisherman experience.

Wildrose sold alot of memberships at those Town Hall meetings as finally someone stood up to the Buerocrats.

Most of the large Southern Reservoirs are for irrigation, not fishing, and can be drawn down to the point where the fish will winterkill. Because of that reality, the limits should be very generous, as the resource is not permanent.

Drewski

I don't disagree with some retention and harvest. That said, I'll admit to being very reluctant to open that Pandora's Box, because I can see things going very wrong, very fast,. However, if done within reason, based on sound data, and with sufficient enforcement, I think it's a good thing, and will be sustainable.

Where I strongly disagree is your suggestion that because there's a chance, a very SMALL chance, that the walleye population may be affected in the future, that it justifies significantly affecting it today. That logic simply doesn't add up for me, and I could provide dozens of analogies to show how faulty it is.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by deschambault

For the first time in many years we got to eat a walleye from a southern reservoir this weekend. We caught and ate a legal walleye from Travers reservoir last Saturday. Thanks to F&W for finally opening up several southern reservoirs to a small slot limit retention. Eating the odd fish is still part of the experience.

I'm just happy you got eat some

My soap box burned up in a recent wild fire.

[mongo]

Ya can thank Jason Kenny he was the who got the hatchery for walleye going again so walleye could be stalked .

[deschambault]

Hey, we are talking about a very limited slot 50 to 55 cm and I seriously doubt this will doom all the reservoirs to walleye extinction. I just came back from Tobin where we ate a lot of 17 inch walleye for lunch. I am not saying that a 45 to 50 cm slot wouldn't be better but I applaud F&W for at least trying something other than complete elimination of harvest.