When is a canal not considered part of the lake?

[bessiedog]

Couple of southern lakes I fish have spillways that turn into irrigation canals.

About 1/4 to 1/2 a km down along the canals there's deep holes that trap fish.

I assumed these fish are not under the lake regs (which is no retention).

I've been told otherwise.

Anyone have any input on this?

[Joe Quiroga]

I can't speak for where you are fishing at but I bumped into a F&W officer last summer and asked a similar question about the canals off of Kitsum. His response was I could keep anything I caught out of them. ( I never did keep anything from them)

I'm guessing as long as they aren't specifically mentioned in the regs and you are observing the province wide regs for specific fish you are probably good to go. When in doubt though a quick phone call to the local F&W office would probably be best.

Joe

[dutchpirate]

I would think that if a canal was to be covered under the lake restrictions, it would be described in the lake limits such as these quoted from the 2016 regs

Milk River Ridge Reservoir and upstream on the inlet canal to
the first drop structure

Newell Lake – including the inlet canal downstream of the Bow
Slope turnout structure

[kevinhits]

Mcgregor canel is very specific coming from the Bow in the regs.

[hacman]

My understanding is once the spillway leaves the lake, it's now a canal. Unless it forms another lake which would then by named and include that portion of the canal. Examples in the south being Chin flowing into Stafford, and Ridge spillway into Cross Coulee.

An un-named canal falls into Part B of the "Streams" portion of PP1 regs which are closed Mar 16. They cover everything this way.

Regular limits apply to the canal if not specificlly listed, even if the lake above is zero limit. That's my interpretation of the water you're referring to.