Do you Catch and Realse or Keep fish

[Darren N]

99 percent C&R. Less fish to clean when i get home.

[sir pikealott]

I may keep one or two Pike in the winter (4-5lber's), and usually one nice limit of Perch, also in the winter. I'm actually deep frying the one limit of Perch from this winter tonight. Can't wait! Usually always keep one limit of Lakers if I make it to Spray. Wish I lived closer to the West coast some days, I'd have a few Salmon in the freezer (Halibut too! yum!). If I'm with the kids I may keep more often (everyone knows how hard it its to get a kid to let "Their Fish" go sometimes, LOL!). And one day, I'll start to concentrate on fishing for Walleye. Haven't eaten one in years! Mostly catch.....measure.....picture and release with the odd one for the BBQ or Fryer. Tight lines!

[Bigtoad]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

At some point we need to eat fish or there really is no reason for the government to allow fishing.

I'm not suggesting that we limit all fishing to C&R. I'm just suggestion some education on the benefits of more voluntary C&R, especially when it comes to big fish might go a long way. This should apply to all species of fish in the province. I'm not just talking trout here.

And as for what size should go back? It really depends on what waterbody you're fishing, what species you're catching, and your own preference. In Gull, any pike over 8ish lbs is going back for me. Beaver Lake, any rainbow even approaching a modest 18" is going back in the H20. In Pigeon, a 5lb whitie is going back in the drink. In Stauffer, I'd rather shoot and eat my own dog than keep one of these sacred pigs.

What I'd like to see in education is let people know some facts about big fish. Some good stuff out of Barry Mitchell's Forestry Trunk Road showing how rare it is for a trout in a stream to survive to get big, and how long it takes to grow a certain size in certain types of water conditions. The information makes you appreciate those fish much more and want to release those big guys. That information is part of the reason I will seldom, if ever, keep a fish out of stream (unless its stunted brookies that have bread themselves silly). Same goes for pike or walleye, or any species; if it takes 8 years to grow a 10lb pike (pulling this #out of my ass), you might think twice before you bonk 3 of them each. You might keep 3 average sized ones instead... or just 1

If you are under the false impression that fishing in Alberta is just a renewable resource and that pike over 10lbs or trout over 20" are everywhere and don't require time, money, resources, the right environment, the right regulations, etc, to grow to even those modest sizes, then you are also more inclined to bonk them when given half a chance.

If however, you believe that it requires quite a few factors to all come together to create a large fish (whatever that means to you) then you might be more inclined to release that fish. No???

Cheers.

Lots of good arguements to be made for how C&R improves the trophy quality of a fishery and in many cases it improves the over all health of a water body and I wasn't arguing that but at the end of the day, if people aren't eating fish, there are some pretty strong arguements to stop people from fishing all together.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

At some point we need to eat fish or there really is no reason for the government to allow fishing.

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Lots of good arguements to be made for how C&R improves the trophy quality of a fishery and in many cases it improves the over all health of a water body and I wasn't arguing that but at the end of the day, if people aren't eating fish, there are some pretty strong arguements to stop people from fishing all together.

I have to agree and disagree.

I believe there has to be balance and opportunity to harvest fish in Alberta...however I stress that simply defining fishing as a harvesting activity is false.

Many people fish L. Kan for big bull trout because of the recreational aspect of the activity. Others fish southern Alberta for Arctic Grayling because they love fishing even though their is zero harvest.

You can not reasonably define fishing as solely the harvesting of fish. That is not what defines it otherwise people would just go to the grocery store and save a ton of money on gas, lodging, tackle, bait etc. What sells the activity is the recreational benefits and enjoyment. To improve on the recreational enjoyment would impact a larger portion of the population IMHO that improving on the harvest.

Still...I would not vote for a zero harvest throughout the Province. Like I was taught as a kid...moderation is always the key. Never swing too far to either extreme. Keeping balance by providing options and sound management in our sport serves more people than making the whole province catch and release or the whole province a fish harvesting free for all.

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I have to agree and disagree.

I believe there has to be balance and opportunity to harvest fish in Alberta...however I stress that simply defining fishing as a harvesting activity is false.

Many people fish L. Kan for big bull trout because of the recreational aspect of the activity. Others fish southern Alberta for Arctic Grayling because they love fishing even though their is zero harvest.

You can not reasonably define fishing as solely the harvesting of fish. That is not what defines it otherwise people would just go to the grocery store and save a ton of money on gas, lodging, tackle, bait etc. What sells the activity is the recreational benefits and enjoyment. To improve on the recreational enjoyment would impact a larger portion of the population IMHO that improving on the harvest.

Still...I would not vote for a zero harvest throughout the Province. Like I was taught as a kid...moderation is always the key. Never swing too far to either extreme. Keeping balance by providing options and sound management in our sport serves more people than making the whole province catch and release or the whole province a fish harvesting free for all.

I think you are missing my point. As an angler I agree with everything you say but how do you sell the self gratifying torture of fish to a non-angler? We hunt for a lot of personal reasons but the day we stop eating meat is the day hunting disappears. The same can be said of fish. We fish to eat is pretty easy to justify. We fish because it gives us pleasure even those it causes fish stress and mortality is not so easy to justify. Don't get me wrong, I totally appreciate what C&R means but at the end of the day, C&R would not exist if it were not for the guys that love to eat fish. The fish killers are critical to the future of fishing in modern society. They definitely aren't the bad guys.

[huntfishtrap]

SH, I can't see the the logic to compare hunting to C&R fishing. Maybe if you could explain further.

Originally Posted by huntfishtrap

SH, I can't see the the logic to compare hunting to C&R fishing. Maybe if you could explain further.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that fishing and hunting are both traditionally sports that people engaged in to feed themselves and it seems that the general public and even the government can get their heads around that and support it and fund it. But suddenly if that sport becomes nothing but entertainment where fish are caused stressed and die for no other reason than entertainment, it becomes a mighty tough sell to the general public and to the government considering the precarious state of our funding for SRD. As long as people eat fish, fishing is easy to justify.

Can you imagine if we started going out and darting a few dozen whitetails each a day for sheer entertainment and a few died because of stress and mortality?

I'm not against C&R fishing at all. I'm just looking at the big picture and a few of those posters criticizing people that catch and eat fish better do the same. The only reason they can practice C&R is because some people still choose to eat fish.

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I think you are missing my point. As an angler I agree with everything you say but how do you sell the self gratifying torture of fish to a non-angler? We hunt for a lot of personal reasons but the day we stop eating meat is the day hunting disappears. The same can be said of fish. We fish to eat is pretty easy to justify. We fish because it gives us pleasure even those it causes fish stress and mortality is not so easy to justify. Don't get me wrong, I totally appreciate what C&R means but at the end of the day, C&R would not exist if it were not for the guys that love to eat fish. The fish killers are critical to the future of fishing in modern society. They definitely aren't the bad guys.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.... agree x 100

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I have to agree and disagree.

I believe there has to be balance and opportunity to harvest fish in Alberta...however I stress that simply defining fishing as a harvesting activity is false.

Many people fish L. Kan for big bull trout because of the recreational aspect of the activity. Others fish southern Alberta for Arctic Grayling because they love fishing even though their is zero harvest.

You can not reasonably define fishing as solely the harvesting of fish. That is not what defines it otherwise people would just go to the grocery store and save a ton of money on gas, lodging, tackle, bait etc. What sells the activity is the recreational benefits and enjoyment. To improve on the recreational enjoyment would impact a larger portion of the population IMHO that improving on the harvest.
Still...I would not vote for a zero harvest throughout the Province. Like I was taught as a kid...moderation is always the key. Never swing too far to either extreme. Keeping balance by providing options and sound management in our sport serves more people than making the whole province catch and release or the whole province a fish harvesting free for all.

thats your opinion Sun.....some fisherman enjoy everything you state and the climax is harvesting a fish for supper. Use Climax in another activity and maybe you'll understand. Stop telling people what they like or should like according to the book of Sun, if a person wants to spend money for gas lodging bait and bonk a fish...thats his business. No where does he need you to show him the directions to the grocery store.
most importantly TJ's points are dead to rights....you cant even present a arguement to his facts......without a harvest there is no fishing

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I think you are missing my point. As an angler I agree with everything you say but how do you sell the self gratifying torture of fish to a non-angler? We hunt for a lot of personal reasons but the day we stop eating meat is the day hunting disappears. The same can be said of fish. We fish to eat is pretty easy to justify. We fish because it gives us pleasure even those it causes fish stress and mortality is not so easy to justify. Don't get me wrong, I totally appreciate what C&R means but at the end of the day, C&R would not exist if it were not for the guys that love to eat fish. The fish killers are critical to the future of fishing in modern society. They definitely aren't the bad guys.

You are stating PETA's position without saying it. Switzerland bought into it...but not only is it wrong...it is unenforceable.

If you buy PETA's argument then you ARE only one step away from living under their rules because you have given credence to animals, birds and fish having more rights than you and I. Vegan here we come. By the very nature of hunting you scare, stress and disturb animals that impacts on their ability to mate and find food before winter sets in. People mortally wound animals that are never found...happens all the time.

I find that as a lesser evil in the eyes of PETA they should support catch and release versus catch and kill as one can appreciate more the fish and become more of a protector and custodian of their habitat.

As mentioned however...I am not saying 100% C&R but if we did as you are suggesting then the second you catch a fish and your limit is filled you leave. As more and more fishermen decide to catch their fish before the next guy gets it first...fewer and fewer fish are around. When fishing, many fish get off the hook before they are brought in. That is no different than catch and release. If you catch an undersized or oversized fish or a breeder...it must die because to release it would be cruel.

You get into the Kentucky Fried Chicken arguement as well. I do not believe in giving PETA power by justifying them in any context but since you have here goes.

All trout and walleye stocking in Alberta should be banned. The conditions to raise trout in is crowded...disease riddled and full of stresses. Not fair to the trout. Their fins are worn and the breeders are run ragged.

Again...I would never stoop to use what they think as an excuse or argument against fishing. I simply don't believe in their philosophy or premise and so what you seem to suggest...that they have some power is false...because only you are giving them that power.

I said a balance between catch and release and catch and kill with sound management is critical. Your argument suggesting you are against any catch and release regulations is fraught with dangers...as stated above.

If anyone studies what you and I are saying...we are in fact saying the same thing. You can't have one without the other in a sound management of Alberta fisheries. That does not mean a harvest at every water body however. There is no harvest of sturgeon and people still fish for them for instance. I also say I harvest fish every year...so I am not a 100% C&R guy either. Without C&R...harvest to the degree some enjoy would be lost.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

thats your opinion Sun.....some fisherman enjoy everything you state and the climax is harvesting a fish for supper. Use Climax in another activity and maybe you'll understand. Stop telling people what they like or should like according to the book of Sun, if a person wants to spend money for gas lodging bait and bonk a fish...thats his business. No where does he need you to show him the directions to the grocery store.
most importantly TJ's points are dead to rights....you cant even present a arguement to his facts......without a harvest there is no fishing

I present a fact...simple fact if you think about it. Kind of a what comes first a chicken or the egg.

If simply the harvesting of fish is what is most enjoyable...then just gaining possession of a fish is no different than going to the grocery store.

If the recreational fun of the activity of fishing which you hope leads to a harvest is the fun...then that supercedes the harvesting.

As an individual you have to think about it and what it means to you.

If you go fishing all day and catch lots of fish but don't take anything home...are you heart broken, distraught, upset or mad?

If you go fishing...catch a fish in the first minute and drive all the way back home...are you happy?

I would say 95% of the people enjoy the activity first and foremost and keeping something to eat is just icing on the cake...not the cake itself.

Again sundance you aren't reading what I'm writing. You are so anxious to put me on the other side of the issue that you aren't comprehending what I'm saying. Where did I once say I was against C&R fishing. I actually participate in the practice often....as I stated.

I'm not buying anything. I'm looking at the big picture and what could be if we quit fishing for food. Peta is no more happy that we catch and kill than catch and release. I think the fact that several European countries have bought into the anti C&R philosophy should be a wake up call.

I totally agree that a balance of C&R is a good thing and I've never said it wasn't. I just said those that are anti killing better wake up and smell the coffee or there won't be any coffee to smell soon. Please read what I've written and don't tell me what I've written....k?

You are right, we are pretty much saying the same thing so I'm not certain why you are arguing with me?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Again sundance you aren't reading what I'm writing. You are so anxious to put me on the other side of the issue that you aren't comprehending what I'm saying. Where did I once say I was against C&R fishing. I actually participate in the practice often....as I stated.

I'm not buying anything. I'm looking at the big picture and what could be if we quit fishing for food. Peta is no more happy that we catch and kill than catch and release. I think the fact that several European countries have bought into the anti C&R philosophy should be a wake up call.

I totally agree that a balance of C&R is a good thing and I've never said it wasn'[t. I just said those that are antim killing better wake up and smell the coffee or there won't be any coffee to smell soon. Please read what I've written and don't tell me what I've written....k?

No I read it...I was just commenting against the PETA argument you were using to justify harvest. I am not against harvest and I am sure you noted that. I just don't give value or power to PETA like you are doing is all. They are flawed...period.

I just don't buy that big picture you are saying...for the reasons you give.

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

No I read it...I was just commenting against the PETA argument you were using to justify harvest. I am not against harvest and I am sure you noted that. I just don't give value or power to PETA like you are doing is all. They are flawed...period.

Where did I even mention Peta let alone give power or value to what they are saying? Are you saying that C&R fishing doesn't cause stress or mortality? Are you saying C&R fishing isn't strictly for enjoyment?

[Gust]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I present a fact...simple fact if you think about it. Kind of a what comes first a chicken or the egg.

If simply the harvesting of fish is what is most enjoyable...then just gaining possession of a fish is no different than going to the grocery store.

If the recreational fun of the activity of fishing which you hope leads to a harvest is the fun...then that supercedes the harvesting.

As an individual you have to think about it and what it means to you.

If you go fishing all day and catch lots of fish but don't take anything home...are you heart broken, distraught, upset or mad?

If you go fishing...catch a fish in the first minute and drive all the way back home...are you happy?

I would say 95% of the people enjoy the activity first and foremost and keeping something to eat is just icing on the cake...not the cake itself.

They are both mutual. You could apply primal too,, chopping wood all day to keep you warm for winter, hauling water a mile a day for cowboy coffee and basin washing, tending a garden, even stoking a Hibatchi with coals. There isn't anything quite like the right to enjoy the "hunt" to self-sustain even if it means spending 6 fold the gas than buying a five dollar tray of fillets from Superstore.

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I present a fact...simple fact if you think about it. Kind of a what comes first a chicken or the egg.

If simply the harvesting of fish is what is most enjoyable...then just gaining possession of a fish is no different than going to the grocery store.

why cant others enjoy the whole 9 yards...without you sending them to the grocery store....Sun here's a simple question....why is it so important to you that others find enjoyment in recreation only by your rules

If the recreational fun of the activity of fishing which you hope leads to a harvest is the fun...then that supercedes the harvesting.

As an individual you have to think about it and what it means to you.

If you go fishing all day and catch lots of fish but don't take anything home...are you heart broken, distraught, upset or mad?

i rarely kill fish....if i dont do well im definetly not heart broken but the competitive nature in me is alittle upset i couldnt figure the fish out

If you go fishing...catch a fish in the first minute and drive all the way back home...are you happy?

sure i love catching fish

I would say 95% of the people enjoy the activity first and foremost and keeping something to eat is just icing on the cake...not the cake itself.

well that may be true......but you best appreciate what TJ is saying or there is going to be a heart broken 95%

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Where did I even mention Peta let alone give power or value to what they are saying? Are you saying that C&R fishing doesn't cause stress or mortality? Are you saying C&R fishing isn't strictly for enjoyment?

The example of C&R is mean to fish is a classic PETA argument is all. It is an argument that encompasses hunting as well as mentioned. I don't buy their arguments and will always argue against them. I know you are not arguing for PETA but just arguing that C&R supports the same theories.

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

The example of C&R is mean to fish is a classic PETA argument is all. It is an argument that encompasses hunting as well as mentioned. I don't buy their arguments and will always argue against them. I know you are not arguing for PETA but just arguing that C&R supports the same theories.

Regardless of who makes the arguement, I ask again......

Are you saying that C&R fishing doesn't cause stress or mortality? Are you saying C&R fishing isn't strictly for enjoyment?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

well that may be true......but you best appreciate what TJ is saying or there is going to be a heart broken 95%

Again...while I disagree strongly with arguments based in PETA logic... I have agreed harvest is fine when managed properly. I also say C&R is fine when managed properly. I also said balance between them is required in a sustainable fisheries management program.

what is wrong with that?

I do argue strongly against saying fishing for the sake of fishing is fun in itself. Harvesting from time to time is fine and is icing on the cake...not the cake for most people. If you believe the most important reason to fish is to kill something...while yes it is primal...it is also your perogative. I don't think the majority of people on this board would agree. I also know lots of hunters whose say the most enjoyment of hunting is going out...communing with nature...hanging with buddies and getting away from it all. Getting a moose or elk is just icing on the cake for them...but they are not crushed if the could not go.

Here is a test.

1) If you can't go fishing...are you sad? YES/NO

2) If you go fishing catch some and don't kill a fish are you crushed? YES/NO

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Regardless of who makes the arguement, I ask again......

Are you saying that C&R fishing doesn't cause stress or mortality? Are you saying C&R fishing isn't strictly for enjoyment?

There was a thread about this a while ago. Simple facts are without bait mortality is about 2%...handling, style, all plays a part. Generally you know when they are having trouble. Those are the ones I would eat. Flyfishing has less mortality by a huge margin over bait fishing.

Still...the survival rate is way better than harvesting them when caught.

I also thought I was clear. C&R is strictly for the recreational enjoyment. In some circumstances it works better from a management perspective. southern Grayling, Sturgeon, Bull Trout etc. If guys are catching Lower Kan bulls and not freezing their gills, bashing their heads on rocks or keeping them out of the water for longer than 30 seconds to take photo after photo...then sure...catch and release like crazy. The low expected mortality is simply factored into the management plan. A totally different plan would be required if a harvest was happening. In fact a harvest of 1 a day would destroy the population in less than 5 years...so is C&R bad? I don't think so...in the right situation it is required.

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

There was a thread about this a while ago. Simple facts are without bait mortality is about 2%...handling, style, all plays a part. Generally you know when they are having trouble. Those are the ones I would eat. Flyfishing has less mortality by a huge margin over bait fishing.

Still...the survival rate is way better than harvesting them when caught.

I also thought I was clear. C&R is strictly for the recreational enjoyment. In some circumstances it works better from a management perspective. southern Grayling, Sturgeon, Bull Trout etc. If guys are catching Lower Kan bulls and not freezing their gills, bashing their heads on rocks or keeping them out of the water for longer than 30 seconds to take photo after photo...then sure...catch and release like crazy. The low expected mortality is simply factored into the management plan. A totally different plan would be required if a harvest was happening. In fact a harvest of 1 a day would destroy the population in less than 5 years...so is C&R bad? I don't think so...in the right situation it is required.

Sun ive always respected you and your opinions.......
TJ made a huge mistake when he didnt ask you to answer....with ust YES or NO answers..lol

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

TJ made a huge mistake when he didnt ask you to answer....with ust YES or NO answers..lol

LOL....I'm starting to see that.

Sundance, I fear you've missed the complete point of my posts and direct questions. I am in no way opposed to C&R fishing but I am opposed to those that belittle the fish killers and I am opposed to management that is single serving. Fisherman represent a wide variety of interests and those need to be represented in our management. From what I read in your posts we are on the same page in that regard so I'm not sure why you are trying to paint me on the side of Peta.

But, at the end of the day, C&R anglers have some hard questions to answer. I still say that without the meat fishermen, C&R angling would quickly disappear along with them. That's not Peta rhetoric but looking at the big picture with clear glasses. Hard questions like those are scary and typically illecit the response you gave. Meat fishermen don't have to spend so much time justifying what they do. For a C&R angler not to respect and even encourage meat fishing in a sustainable way is suicidal. From your posts I think you respect meat anglers so not really sure how we got here.

Asking hard questions about what you are passionate about is a useful excercise. It typically ensures you have the answers when they are asked.

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Sundance, I fear you've missed the complete point of my posts and direct questions. I am in no way opposed to C&R fishing but I am opposed to those that belittle the fish killers and I am opposed to management that is single serving. Fisherman represent a wide variety of interests and those need to be represented in our management. From what I read in your posts we are on the same page in that regard so I'm not sure why you are trying to paint me on the side of Peta.

But, at the end of the day, C&R anglers have some hard questions to answer. I still say that without the meat fishermen, C&R angling would quickly disappear along with them. That's not Peta rhetoric but looking at the big picture with clear glasses. Hard questions like those are scary and typically illecit the response you gave. Meat fishermen don't have to spend so much time justifying what they do. For a C&R angler not to respect and even encourage meat fishing in a sustainable way is suicidal. From your posts I think you respect meat anglers so not really sure how we got here.

Asking hard questions about what you are passionate about is a useful excercise. It typically ensures you have the answers when they are asked.

booyaah...i wish i could write like that....nice work

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Sundance, I fear you've missed the complete point of my posts and direct questions. I am in no way opposed to C&R fishing but I am opposed to those that belittle the fish killers and I am opposed to management that is single serving. Fisherman represent a wide variety of interests and those need to be represented in our management. From what I read in your posts we are on the same page in that regard so I'm not sure why you are trying to paint me on the side of Peta.

But, at the end of the day, C&R anglers have some hard questions to answer. I still say that without the meat fishermen, C&R angling would quickly disappear along with them. That's not Peta rhetoric but looking at the big picture with clear glasses. Hard questions like those are scary and typically illecit the response you gave. Meat fishermen don't have to spend so much time justifying what they do. For a C&R angler not to respect and even encourage meat fishing in a sustainable way is suicidal. From your posts I think you respect meat anglers so not really sure how we got here.

Asking hard questions about what you are passionate about is a useful excercise. It typically ensures you have the answers when they are asked.

No sorry. I am not trying to paint you on side with PETA. Sorry...it was not my intent. However I don't think fishing would disappear if people don't kill fish. There are many fisheries that are catch and release that are thriving and doing well. If you did a poll and said do you agree that harvesting is not a problem when balance with other options like C&R...you would probably get 99% agreement. I don't see where a large number of people are saying they believe all harvest in the province should be stopped. C&R people just say they want a percentage of C&R lakes where average sized stocked rainbows are present and over harvest or over stocking is not a problem. It is strictly focused on stocked trout lakes versus natural lakes and does not seem to ever mention walleye or pike etc.

How many have belittled people that want to harvest fish from time to time?

[Dust1n]

i agrree with sundace about how C&R dosent hurt the fishery.
for example Sylvan lake walleye and Ram river cuttys. theve been both C&R for certain species and there doing well with 10lb walleye and massive cuttys with the population to back it up without over crowding.its ok to take a fish once inawhile but too take alot of fish home everyday can whip out a bunch of the river for years. I did this to blindman river when i was younger...dont repeat it.
and for the fish ill say over half C&R but if i go and catch about 125 eyes and keep a white for shore lunch ill say im about a 99% C&R fisherman and im sure other people do the same. but i only keep fish in spring and winter when there good to eat IMO.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Fish Hunter7

i agrree with sundace about how C&R dosent hurt the fishery.
for example Sylvan lake walleye and Ram river cuttys. theve been both C&R for certain species and there doing well with 10lb walleye and massive cuttys with the population to back it up without over crowding.its ok to take a fish once inawhile but too take alot of fish home everyday can whip out a bunch of the river for years. I did this to blindman river when i was younger...dont repeat it.
and for the fish ill say over half C&R but if i go and catch about 125 eyes and keep a white for shore lunch ill say im about a 99% C&R fisherman and im sure other people do the same. but i only keep fish in spring and winter when there good to eat IMO.

Correct me if I am wrong but is the Sylvan Lake walleye C&R for management reasons to build a population back up? This is different than the cutts in Ram, Grayling in Bear or Bulls in Lower K. Those are managed as C&R to maintain a fishery that would be gone otherwise or seriously damaged.

So far in every thread the predominant theme from people that want some C&R fisheries and enjoy them also say they have no problem with none C&R fisheries and those that want a harvest.

Therefore when I see the debate seemingly swinging against C&R...it makes me wonder what is up...

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Correct me if I am wrong but is the Sylvan Lake walleye C&R for management reasons to build a population back up? This is different than the cutts in Ram, Grayling in Bear or Bulls in Lower K. Those are managed as C&R to maintain a fishery that would be gone otherwise or seriously damaged.

So far in every thread the predominant theme from people that want some C&R fisheries and enjoy them also say they have no problem with none C&R fisheries and those that want a harvest.
Therefore when I see the debate seemingly swinging against C&R...it makes me wonder what is up...

Dustin please translate....im assuming you understand....lol

[Dust1n]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Correct me if I am wrong but is the Sylvan Lake walleye C&R for management reasons to build a population back up? This is different than the cutts in Ram, Grayling in Bear or Bulls in Lower K. Those are managed as C&R to maintain a fishery that would be gone otherwise or seriously damaged.

So far in every thread the predominant theme from people that want some C&R fisheries and enjoy them also say they have no problem with none C&R fisheries and those that want a harvest.

Therefore when I see the debate seemingly swinging against C&R...it makes me wonder what is up...

sylvan lake has stocked the walleye there and kept it C&R to buid a self sustaning population and it was succeful lots of 2-3lbers some 6 inchers and some 6lber with the odd bigg guy. i also think its C&R for the tourism on the amazing walleye fishery.sylvann has never had walleye and sylvan is one of the best lakes for a walleye population IMo because of the rocks, sand flats, humps ,drop offs and alot of differnt structures some lakes lack.