New Regs Out, Burn the Internet Down!

[EZM]

Originally Posted by TROLLER

Well then who can explain the small walleye that are in pcr.

I do not know anyone who has caught much over 40cm and nothing on the fat side either.

Lack of food? not enough vitamins in the food? You seem to know the answer so what is it then.

A mystery for sure don't ya think. Or could it just be a walleye that does not grow much over 40 cm.

That is correct .... lack of food and forage have direct and dramatic impact of fish growth rates. This is a known, common, and elementary concept no fisheries biologist would argue.

As a result, these malnourished fish will often, and commonly stunt.

Too many mouths to feed on far less available food.

It's not mysterious voodoo magic or an unexplained phenomenon.

The Walleye in PCR were likely transplanted 2N fry from LacSteAnne.

This lake serves to stock, through the method of transplant, many of the walleye stocking programs here in the province.

And, yes, I do support this as the most plausible theory.

[Kings]

Originally Posted by slough shark

I would have preferred a retention of 1 on pcr, if we are honest with ourselves that wasn't a healthy ecosystem, all those fish were stunted and eating themselves out of house and home, hopefully this allows other fish species to live and thrive. Perhaps we can see some perch or whitefish introduced as baitfish. It's a bit much of a change in this particular lake but good to see walleye not being given the status of god in all of our lakes

X2

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by EZM

That is correct .... lack of food and forage have direct and dramatic impact of fish growth rates. This is a known, common, and elementary concept no fisheries biologist would argue.

As a result, these malnourished fish will often, and commonly stunt.

Too many mouths to feed on far less available food.

It's not mysterious voodoo magic or an unexplained phenomenon.

The Walleye in PCR were likely transplanted 2N fry from LacSteAnne.

This lake serves to stock, through the method of transplant, many of the walleye stocking programs here in the province.

.

I was not aware that any lakes with the exception of maybe one or two a year are being stocked and usually in the same lakes. I may not be up on the current stocking program but am curious in what lakes are the "many" stocking programs you speak of.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by FlyTheory

You're essentially right, so don't be sorry. There could be morphs in different lakes because of genetic isolation, but if walleye are transferred into PCR then yeah they're not probably not unique. To comment towards person that you're replying to, no they aren't a certain breed, the population is just constrained from the amount of food source, or id assume (I've never fished PCR). It could be a few other state factors as well, ecology isn't black and white.

I know, I was just trying to "put it gently".

From what I've read - Walleye don't come in different "breeds" as the contributor indicated.

A biologist would have used the proper term "species" or "sub-species". He would not have described this as a breed (for reasons too complicated to describe using fish as an example).

The one, and only mentioned sub-species is Sander vitreus glaucus (blue walleye) and, ironically, since they are extinct, true sub-species status has not been determined. In fact, they believe this to be related to Meristics, in this case pigmentation and variations, for this species.

It has not, to this day, been ratified or confirmed.

Most scientists will point toward the most plausible theory whereas color variation in walleye in some watersheds is not that rare. Green Walleyes in Manitoba, Blues in Ontario, Yellow here out west, in ALL CASES were found to be one, and the same, species.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by bobalong

I was not aware that any lakes with the exception of maybe one or two a year are being stocked and usually in the same lakes. I may not be up on the current stocking program but am curious in what lakes are the "many" stocking programs you speak of.

OK, what I meant by many was, many different lakes over the years, not many lakes every year. All the info in the stocking reports shows ESRD going "all in" with HUGE quantities of walleye all into one, maybe two watersheds.

Wabamun, Isogun, Isle, Pigeon, Gull, and a few others that I can't recall all at some point had transplants from LacSteAnne.

The problem is (general statement here) - in my opinion - instead of stocking a few hundred thousand fry in a dozen lakes - they dump millions into one lake - so, yes, if they all survive, they are going to starve and stunt.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by EZM

OK, what I meant by many was, many different lakes over the years, not many lakes every year. All the info in the stocking reports shows ESRD going "all in" with HUGE quantities of walleye all into one, maybe two watersheds.

Wabamun, Isogun, Isle, Pigeon, Gull, and a few others that I can't recall all at some point had transplants from LacSteAnne.

The problem is (general statement here) - in my opinion - instead of stocking a few hundred thousand fry in a dozen lakes - they dump millions into one lake - so, yes, if they all survive, they are going to starve and stunt.

I was looking at Sk. stocking a few nights ago, didn't see one for 2016 but in 2015 they stocked about 40 bodies of water with about 10 million walleye. Sort of a yearly thing for them.
Always wondered why Sk. seems to always be able to afford stocking but Alberta only commits a very small amount of money for walleye if any each year. With the exception of a few lakes over the past 20 years Alberta refuses to allocate money for the short or long term commitment to our walleye fisheries.

[mickeyjim]

Originally Posted by bobalong

I was looking at Sk. stocking a few nights ago, didn't see one for 2016 but in 2015 they stocked about 40 bodies of water with about 10 million walleye. Sort of a yearly thing for them.
Always wondered why Sk. seems to always be able to afford stocking but Alberta only commits a very small amount of money for walleye if any each year. With the exception of a few lakes over the past 20 years Alberta refuses to allocate money for the short or long term commitment to our walleye fisheries.

Boggles my mind too

[Wes_G]

Originally Posted by oilngas

Really hate to see the PCR change, I used it as an introduction spot for newby's, mobility impaired friend, grandkids, morning fishery with neighbours, get the boat running in the spring etc.. AER asked for input until early March 2017, the Regs. must have been finalized and into printers by that date. Sad really, they did not want any input it would seem. I guess in a few years we will may have another put and take small trout fishery.
As other have stated opening days will be a gong show. Might be fun to watch if it wasn't so sad.
I would have thought that if they really wanted the walleye out of there, maybe a one or two tag system for kids etc. may have sufficed. At least that would keep the whole thing some what manageable.

This seemed funny to me as well. I did that survey only 2 weeks ago. I would think the regs would have gone to print well before then, which would mean they had already made up there minds with what was happening at that lake. So what was the point of the survey?

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by Wes_G

This seemed funny to me as well. I did that survey only 2 weeks ago. I would think the regs would have gone to print well before then, which would mean they had already made up there minds with what was happening at that lake. So what was the point of the survey?

Probably two reasons. One being that if there were was ever a backlash to the change and the survey supported the decision to remove walleye then they could say that anglers agreed with the changes prior to being made.

Second reason was probably just to gauge what people thought about the change.

Most likely the change was already planned although they didn't make all the changes proposed in those most recent surveys so maybe they did take them into account.

[FlyTheory]

Originally Posted by EZM

I know, I was just trying to "put it gently".

From what I've read - Walleye don't come in different "breeds" as the contributor indicated.

A biologist would have used the proper term "species" or "sub-species". He would not have described this as a breed (for reasons too complicated to describe using fish as an example).

The one, and only mentioned sub-species is Sander vitreus glaucus (blue walleye) and, ironically, since they are extinct, true sub-species status has not been determined. In fact, they believe this to be related to Meristics, in this case pigmentation and variations, for this species.

It has not, to this day, been ratified or confirmed (these words are essentially synonymous btw).

Most scientists will point toward the most plausible theory whereas color variation in walleye in some watersheds is not that rare. Green Walleyes in Manitoba, Blues in Ontario, Yellow here out west, in ALL CASES were found to be one, and the same, species.

Yes I know this haha.

[Bear7001]

Originally Posted by Isopod

Good to see Pine Coulee is open to harvest. My kids (under 15), plus my nephews, don't need a license to harvest, correct? I like to fill my freezer with these walleye this summer!

I would hope you show a little restraint and not fill your whole freezer lol.

[the local angler]

well in my mind the only good thing to come of this is originally the walleyes pike and burbot were eating themselves out of home with little to no food source, now what ever survives the onslaught for this free for all harvest there will be a new introduced food source called rainbows lol. now just watch whatever survives figures this out there maybe some hogs soon. lol think positive right?

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by Bear7001

I would hope you show a little restraint and not fill your whole freezer lol.

Considering he can only have 3 each he would have to have a pretty small freezer in order to fill it...

[Habfan]

Originally Posted by RavYak

Considering he can only have 3 each he would have to have a pretty small freezer in order to fill it...

X2

[the local angler]

maybe he has an icebox lol

[winger7mm]

PCR the only lake in alberta you can get a walleye double header on a pickerel rig with bare hooks

[iliketrout]

It really is a shame what is about to happen to this lake. We should get a pool started on when the first "PCR is dead" thread pops up.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by iliketrout

It really is a shame what is about to happen to this lake. We should get a pool started on when the first "PCR is dead" thread pops up.

Not if you like trout.

Best way to clean it out is to fish it out.

[iliketrout]

Lol, well I do like trout, but I feel that chain lakes fills the put and take opportunity down there. It sucks that the lake can't sustain a walleye population and I support allowing the harvest rather than wasting the fish. I answered the survey stating that I would rather they put the money into improving the spawning habitat or forage base rather than stock a bunch of 10 inchers that will be bonked at first opportunity. 2nd preference would be a lake similar to birch with Bows, Browns and brookies managed to a tighter limit or minimum size. But at the end of the day I understand what is happening and why.

What I meant by my comment is that this is going to turn into a gong show for the first month or two, which is the real shame. I wonder if F&W is even going to bother enforcing the limit - I mean they want it fished out so why even put a limit. From some of the posts I've seen not only here but on other social media, sounds like a lot of rules are going to be bent in an effort to multiply allowable limits and get a few extra lbs of walleye.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by iliketrout

Lol, well I do like trout, but I feel that chain lakes fills the put and take opportunity down there. It sucks that the lake can't sustain a walleye population and I support allowing the harvest rather than wasting the fish. I answered the survey stating that I would rather they put the money into improving the spawning habitat or forage base rather than stock a bunch of 10 inchers that will be bonked at first opportunity. 2nd preference would be a lake similar to birch with Bows, Browns and brookies managed to a tighter limit or minimum size. But at the end of the day I understand what is happening and why.

What I meant by my comment is that this is going to turn into a gong show for the first month or two, which is the real shame. I wonder if F&W is even going to bother enforcing the limit - I mean they want it fished out so why even put a limit. From some of the posts I've seen not only here but on other social media, sounds like a lot of rules are going to be bent in an effort to multiply allowable limits and get a few extra lbs of walleye.

People should be fighting for PCR to become a trophy trout fishery which means stocking lower numbers and having reduced catch limits with size restrictions.

It will probably become catch and keep but if people fight for it(start sending emails, go to any meetings in the area etc) they might be able to persuade AEP to turn it into a trophy fishery. Alberta needs more good trout lakes that don't have to rely on aeration. Taking a small pond and adding a aerator doesn't make a "trophy" lake.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by RavYak

People should be fighting for PCR to become a trophy trout fishery which means stocking lower numbers and having reduced catch limits with size restrictions.

It will probably become catch and keep but if people fight for it(start sending emails, go to any meetings in the area etc) they might be able to persuade AEP to turn it into a trophy fishery. Alberta needs more good trout lakes that don't have to rely on aeration. Taking a small pond and adding a aerator doesn't make a "trophy" lake.

Bolded - That was a suggestion I made in the survey we have only Police and Bullshead down south. Would be nice to have another quality fishery.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by iliketrout

Lol, well I do like trout, but I feel that chain lakes fills the put and take opportunity down there. It sucks that the lake can't sustain a walleye population and I support allowing the harvest rather than wasting the fish. I answered the survey stating that I would rather they put the money into improving the spawning habitat or forage base rather than stock a bunch of 10 inchers that will be bonked at first opportunity. 2nd preference would be a lake similar to birch with Bows, Browns and brookies managed to a tighter limit or minimum size. But at the end of the day I understand what is happening and why.

What I meant by my comment is that this is going to turn into a gong show for the first month or two, which is the real shame. I wonder if F&W is even going to bother enforcing the limit - I mean they want it fished out so why even put a limit. From some of the posts I've seen not only here but on other social media, sounds like a lot of rules are going to be bent in an effort to multiply allowable limits and get a few extra lbs of walleye.

You are right about the gong show, have an old fella that likes to eat them so I might brave the crowds so he can get a few.
Then again I might just avoid the place till it calms down(if it even does)
Do like the idea of a quality fishery though. Now is the time to push for it.

[iliketrout]

I'm all for a push for a quality fishery. If anyone has any contacts or ideas, I'm happy to lobby for it.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Bolded - That was a suggestion I made in the survey we have only Police and Bullshead down south. Would be nice to have another quality fishery.

Yeah Police, Bullshead and Beaver the main ones down south but Beaver as an example was wiped out because of 1 bad year of aeration. These are small ponds with limited growing potential that see huge fishing pressure. There are the odd nice fish in these lakes but not like could be possible in a bigger water body like PCR.

I would also fight for a multi species water body, give southern AB a tiger trout lake and imagine going to PCR 5 years from now and catching 25+ inch rainbows and tiger trout. Something like that is very possible if handled right, people will have to speak up and persuade AEP to make it happen though.

[huntsfurfish]

Honestly, I would not be surprised if it was made into a quality fishery.

Considering how close it is to Chain lakes.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by iliketrout

I'm all for a push for a quality fishery. If anyone has any contacts or ideas, I'm happy to lobby for it.

I don't know who the best contacts would be in that area but if you just send your comments to the main email they will forward it to the biologists or whoever is in charge of those decisions down there.

AEP.Info-Centre@gov.ab.ca is the email.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by RavYak

Yeah Police, Bullshead and Beaver the main ones down south but Beaver as an example was wiped out because of 1 bad year of aeration. These are small ponds with limited growing potential that see huge fishing pressure. There are the odd nice fish in these lakes but not like could be possible in a bigger water body like PCR.

I would also fight for a multi species water body, give southern AB a tiger trout lake and imagine going to PCR 5 years from now and catching 25+ inch rainbows and tiger trout. Something like that is very possible if handled right, people will have to speak up and persuade AEP to make it happen though.

Agree, also suggested the tigers in the survey, PCR way better place then Heningers Reservoir that was on the list.

[fish99]

if there is not enough food to grow decent sized walleye , why would it grow trophy trout? if that is the reason they are getting rid of the walleye.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by fish99

if there is not enough food to grow decent sized walleye , why would it grow trophy trout? if that is the reason they are getting rid of the walleye.

That isn't why they are getting rid of walleye... They are getting rid of the walleye because they aren't reproducing.

The walleye are small because of lack of food but that isn't because it is a bad lake, it is because there were too many fish stocked in the lake to begin with.

Also walleye and trout feed on very different food sources so comparing a lakes holding ability of walleye to trout is not possible.

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by RavYak

The walleye are small because of lack of food but that isn't because it is a bad lake, it is because there were too many fish stocked in the lake to begin with.

According to my understanding of the situation, the number of fish initially stocked has nothing to do with the fact the population stunted. It's a direct result of the poor forage base. Add in poor spawning habitat for a number of reasons, and it creates a vicious circle for recruitment.

Walleye numbers are going to be WAY down, so I guess we're going to find out...