Calling Lake Age Classes amazing!!!!

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Why do you have such hurt feelings? Apparently you are a mighty fisherman but you haven't been able to tell me what would be the downside to a one fish limit.

I don't care that you insult me, and I don't care that we don't agree, I'd just like for you to show me how our current system is any better than what I suggested. I've pointed out how our current system is creating an imbalance in fish ratios, created high fishing pressure on lakes where retention is allowed, and if you have a look at the article posted by Don, what a mess wabamun has become.



Approximately 24 weekends in the open water season, the average licenced angler gets out for what, 6 times? I'm not talking about awesome fishermen like yourself, I'm talking about the average amongst licensed anglers in Alberta. There is what, say 280,000 licenses sold in Alberta? Now say they all kept their limit on all 6 trips, that's about 1.7 million province wide. How many walleye are reproduced in a year in Alberta? Each female drops what? 300,000 400,000 500,000 eggs?

Is it selfish to want to be able to eat fish, is it selfish to destroy a pike and perch habitat so you can let 100 walleye go out n a day?

Yes, it is selfish to, imho, want a province wide 1 fish limit. That is not balance even though you think it is. You can continue to type about it on a forum and accomplish what??

Kurt, there is nothing you have said that bothers me, moves me, makes me think, and even gives me pause for thought. It is okay to disagree. Really.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Kurt. I think if you opened every lake to a one fish limit, people from Edmonton for example, would decimate the closest lakes to the city and when those lakes right close to Edmonton were fished out(because of the convienance and proximity to a large city), they would focus on the next closest lakes moving outward from the city as the lakes started to fail them. I picture an army of ants or caterpillars moving outward from the city eating everything in its path until the only lakes worth fishing are the farthest of lakes. Not sure if it would happen that way but that's the pic I get.

Maybe? But it would sure help with the pike and perch populations. If a slot size was imposed with the one fish rule then it would make it more difficult to "fish out" a lake.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Walleyedude

Do you not see the irony in this post?

You've posted the exact evidence I would use to suggest that a slot limit would be a catastrophic failure.

The regs focused the retention on pike, which were previously largely ignored, and within a very short period of time, the pike fisheries have collapsed or been thrown completely out of balance.

The reason it was so hard to catch a legal fish in many of the reservoirs down south is very simple, they got removed from the system by anglers as soon as they were legal. There is zero coincidence involved in the fact that the numbers of fish being caught above the retention limit size, whatever that limit is on a specific lake, is a fraction of the fish being caught below, and often JUST below, the retention limit size.

Spreading the retention around among many lakes and several species may slow the decline, but make no mistake, it will result in a decline on heavily pressured lakes. The proof of that is pretty much undeniable, you've just posted it yourself.

The power that retention limits have is staggering.

Have you ever fished Calling lake? it's was an awesome fishery until all the other lakes started to get shut down. Then because of the pressure the retention limits had been cut, and now to the point that it is zero retention for pike. I'm not sold on a minimum size, but I believe in a maximum size limit.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Yes, it is selfish to, imho, want a province wide 1 fish limit. That is not balance even though you think it is. You can continue to type about it on a forum and accomplish what??

Kurt, there is nothing you have said that bothers me, moves me, makes me think, and even gives me pause for thought. It is okay to disagree. Really.

IMO, I think it's selfish to destroy a pike and perch fishery so you can play fisherman.

I'm not posting to bother, move you, or make you think, but I've obviously done 2 of the three because you keep wanting me to stop posting.

I don't mind agreeing to disagree with you, and stopping the conversation with you right now, there are others here I can converse with.

Take care.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

IMO, I think it's selfish to destroy a pike and perch fishery so you can play fisherman.

I'm not posting to bother, move you, or make you think, but I've obviously done 2 of the three because you keep wanting me to stop posting.

I don't mind agreeing to disagree with you, and stopping the conversation with you right now, there are others here I can converse with.

Take care.

Actually one of three, bother. It bothers me that someone can hold onto something and ignore science. When you say "you can play fisherman" do you mean me? I'm not a bio. Go have a coffee with one and explain your thoughts. Have a nice day

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Have you ever fished Calling lake? it's was an awesome fishery until all the other lakes started to get shut down. Then because of the pressure the retention limits had been cut, and now to the point that it is zero retention for pike.

I'm absolutely baffled as to how you can see the very thing I'm describing as the negative consequences of fishing pressure and retention limits actually happening with your own eyes and not connect the dots to the effects of a slot retention limit.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by NSR Fisher

Agree with Moose, tags are best bet.

If not tags, then have a max size rather than a minimum.

one fish UNDER 50cm makes more sense than 1 fish OVER 50cm for lakes like south buck, for example.

That would mean any that escape getting eaten are protected at once 50.

There was a 43cm and over limit for years and finally the fish between 43 and 50 were mostly gone. They have a limit of 50cm and over but there are very few if any of that size left, so they are letting a few 50's get caught while they let hundreds/thousands grow to spawning size.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Walleyedude

I'm absolutely baffled as to how you can see the very thing I'm describing as the negative consequences of fishing pressure and retention limits actually happening with your own eyes and not connect the dots to the effects of a slot retention limit.

It's the added angling pressure put on Calling lake because it's the only lake that allows retention, can you understand that? Do you understand that when you spread 1000 anglers over 100 lakes that the fish have a better chance of sustaining themselves? Keep shutting down lakes without opening up others will ensure every lake gets a chance to collapse.

There has never been a 1 fish limit province wide, so how can you be so sure it would be a failure?

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

It's the added angling pressure put on Calling lake because it's the only lake that allows retention, can you understand that? Do you understand that when you spread 1000 anglers over 100 lakes that the fish have a better chance of sustaining themselves? Keep shutting down lakes without opening up others will ensure every lake gets a chance to collapse.

There has never been a 1 fish limit province wide, so how can you be so sure it would be a failure?

I am not sure your idea would fail but if you are talking about walleye and pike I believe the 1000 anglers would not go to 100 lakes. In the case of Edmonton they would probably go to maybe 5, the 5 closest to Edmonton, how long do you think those 5 lakes would survive, maybe 1 year?

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by bobalong

I am not sure your idea would fail but if you are talking about walleye and pike I believe the 1000 anglers would not go to 100 lakes. In the case of Edmonton they would probably go to maybe 5, the 5 closest to Edmonton, how long do you think those 5 lakes would survive, maybe 1 year?

I'm not sure, but they held up for quite a few years when it was a 5 fish limit.

I guess it would be good to keep the lakes within a 1/2hr drive from Hwy 2 to a 10 fish per year limit.

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

It's the added angling pressure put on Calling lake because it's the only lake that allows retention, can you understand that? Do you understand that when you spread 1000 anglers over 100 lakes that the fish have a better chance of sustaining themselves? Keep shutting down lakes without opening up others will ensure every lake gets a chance to collapse.

There has never been a 1 fish limit province wide, so how can you be so sure it would be a failure?

I can, and that's what makes me so fearful of expanding retention.

What I can certainly understand is this, AB's population and angler numbers far outweigh it's fishing opportunities, especially near major centers. Those 1000 anglers are not spread over 100 lakes, even if they were all open to retention. That pressure is spread over 10 lakes, and when those 10 lakes start to collapse or fish poorly, they'll then move on to the next 10 lakes, and so on.

Chances are, lakes 90-100 will be fine, but even lakes 70-90 will eventually decline in quality, because lakes 1-20 near population centers will be quickly collapsed, and the pressure on the remainder of the lakes will also result in declining fishing quality, until eventually, the entire fishery is poor to mediocre. There are plenty of examples of that down south, there are also plenty of examples of fisheries that are excellent, which required closures to get there.

I also understand that there is a segment of the angling population that is entirely focused on retention - catch and keep. They will only go where there is retention and they will focus only on species that have retention. My preference is to throw them a couple sacrificial lambs and let them fish them out. When they're gone, they're gone, tough luck.

For the fishing population that just wants to keep a fish for a meal now and then with the family, that's why we have the tag system. It allows careful management of fish retention numbers while still allowing plenty of opportunity to retain a fish or two. As lakes return to balance and can sustain a harvest, my belief is they'll expand the tag system accordingly. I've never not been drawn for something, and if you can't afford the draw price, then you can't afford to be a fisherman.

Lastly, I think a big component that's being overlooked is enforcement. It is VERY difficult to enforce an open province wide, or extensive, one fish slot limit. It's nearly impossible to enforce a yearly fish quota or max retention number of any kind. Poaching becomes an even greater issue than it already is. The potential for abuse, both illegal and within the technicalities of the regs, is huge, and AB's fish populations are very susceptible to that. On top of that, you have no real way of monitoring the numbers or locations of fish that are being harvested. We've both seen just how quickly angling pressure and retention can affect a fishery, why gamble with what amounts to an uncontrolled harvest?

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Walleyedude

. My preference is to throw them a couple sacrificial lambs and let them fish them out.

It's your preference, but you are not the only type of angler in Alberta.

What you want is what fits your personal agenda, not a balanced fishery. Drop 75% of the anglers a sacrificial lamb so you can fish 90% of the lakes for walleye you can't keep. There are so many lakes in Alberta now that are grossly over populated with walleye. That's great if all you want to catch is walleye and throw them back.

If it's solely a sport fishery you're after, why not promote trout ponds or pike habitats? They fight a hell of a lot better than walleye, and it's not like you're going to eat them.
You are basing your argument on wanting a walleye fishery for yourself, not a healthy balanced multi-species fishery.

There are other sport fish in Alberta.

You know for certain my suggestion will fail, can you show me a case study that backs that up? Certainly not from Alberta where daily limits went from 5 to zero and even possession limits went from 10 to 1. Poachers will poach no matter what the limits are, so that's a moot point.

Why not drop a sacrificial lamb to your type of angling and keep a zero retention on 10% of the lakes? It's not like you'll fish them out.

[dfrobert]

Can't wait to go fish Saskatchewan again! They seem to have it figured out even on lakes with very high pressure.

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

It's your preference, but you are not the only type of angler in Alberta.

What you want is what fits your personal agenda, not a balanced fishery. Drop 75% of the anglers a sacrificial lamb so you can fish 90% of the lakes for walleye you can't keep. There are so many lakes in Alberta now that are grossly over populated with walleye. That's great if all you want to catch is walleye and throw them back.

If it's solely a sport fishery you're after, why not promote trout ponds or pike habitats? They fight a hell of a lot better than walleye, and it's not like you're going to eat them.
You are basing your argument on wanting a walleye fishery for yourself, not a healthy balanced multi-species fishery.

There are other sport fish in Alberta.

You know for certain my suggestion will fail, can you show me a case study that backs that up? Certainly not from Alberta where daily limits went from 5 to zero and even possession limits went from 10 to 1. Poachers will poach no matter what the limits are, so that's a moot point.

I'm basing my argument on wanting a healthy fishery for all species, for all anglers. THAT is my agenda. Nothing else. Do not put words in my mouth.

A 5 fish limit devasted AB's fisheries to the point it took decades to recover. If you can't see the light based on your own experiences and the "case studies" that are all around you, then there's nothing I can do for you.

Poaching/enforcement is the farthest thing from a moot point. I do understand why you don't want to address it and the difficulties it presents to your plan.

In my entire previous post, you conviently ignored 99% of it to zero in on one sentence to actually respond to, and on top of that, you responded with a strawman argument. I think I'm done here...

[SNAPFisher]

I was going to post something similar Walleyedude. Don't match wits with Kurt because in 6-8 posts, he has figured out your "personal agenda" and determined you care for nothing but only walleye and can't wait for the other species to die so we only have walleye left. Maybe you should change your name as it is a dead give away

BTW, your last post pretty much sums it up.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Walleyedude

I'm basing my argument on wanting a healthy fishery for all species, for all anglers. THAT is my agenda. Nothing else. Do not put words in my mouth.

A 5 fish limit devasted AB's fisheries to the point it took decades to recover. If you can't see the light based on your own experiences and the "case studies" that are all around you, then there's nothing I can do for you.

Poaching/enforcement is the farthest thing from a moot point. I do understand why you don't want to address it and the difficulties it presents to your plan.

In my entire previous post, you conviently ignored 99% of it to zero in on one sentence to actually respond to, and on top of that, you responded with a strawman argument. I think I'm done here...

You aren't basing your argument on a healthy balance, strictly on a catch a walleye fishery. You haven't addressed the lakes which are grossly over populated with walleye.

It was a 5 fish, 10 retention fishery, of any size and it was left that way for too long. The case study we can base my suggestion on is Calling lake, it's a lake that has a 1 slot size fish regulation. And if you haven't noticed, it is a great proponent of my suggestion. Are there any other lakes they have tried this on?

You understand why I don't want to address poaching??? Are you suggesting I'm a poacher? Because you had better damn not be. Poachers are poachers and will poach if the limit is 0 or 50! Poachers and poaching is a whole other topic and won't change with regulations.

None of your post addressed a balanced fishery, it's solely aimed at walleye. You conveniently ignored the fact there are lakes with the pike and perch fishery collapsing because the lakes are grossly over populated with walleye.

Yes Alberta has a high angler to lake ratio, but a zero retention or near zero retention of walleye is obviously not the solution unless all you want is for Alberta to be a walleye only province. There are several lakes that are living proof of that.

The current plan of zero or near zero retention is just now starting to show its ill side effects, and with Albertas proven conservation track record of being a reactive system rather than a proactive system, it won't be long before we have totally collapsed pike and perch fisheries.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I'm not sure, but they held up for quite a few years when it was a 5 fish limit.

I guess it would be good to keep the lakes within a 1/2hr drive from Hwy 2 to a 10 fish per year limit.

Limits of 5 or 10 fish on the local Edmonton lakes was at least 20 years or so ago. This was the beginning of fishing closures (catch and release) around Edmonton. About the mid nineties the local lakes, Pigeon, Isle, Jackfish, Lac St. Anne, La Nonne all started to close (catch and release)

The government had let high fishing limits continue until these fisheries collapsed, they should have implemented tags or reduced limits much sooner, and they should have adjusted pike limits, but they did not. This many closures was new to Alberta back then and there was lots of pressure from the campgrounds, cabin owners and local business to leave their lakes open.

The government did not know what to do, or would not commit the dollars to do it so their management plan was just to close retention to walleye on many of the lakes. This basically cost nothing and was the only plan for probably 10 years.....they did nothing. Enforcement at this time was almost non-existent as well, which just compounded the problems.

With the closures, instead of increasing stocking for walleye, after about 1999 until 2006 there was virtually no stocking done, and still there is very little. Even now the government spends about 6 million a year on trout stocking and maybe 2 or 300 thousand on walleye.

Sask. stock about 15-30 walleye lakes every year, that commitment to their fishery and their very low angler/lake ratio are two very big reasons for their walleye fisheries being much better than ours.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by bobalong

Limits of 5 or 10 fish on the local Edmonton lakes was at least 20 years or so ago. This was the beginning of fishing closures (catch and release) around Edmonton. About the mid nineties the local lakes, Pigeon, Isle, Jackfish, Lac St. Anne, La Nonne all started to close (catch and release)

The government had let high fishing limits continue until these fisheries collapsed, they should have implemented tags or reduced limits much sooner, and they should have adjusted pike limits, but they did not. This many closures was new to Alberta back then and there was lots of pressure from the campgrounds, cabin owners and local business to leave their lakes open.

The government did not know what to do, or would not commit the dollars to do it so their management plan was just to close retention to walleye on many of the lakes. This basically cost nothing and was the only plan for probably 10 years.....they did nothing. Enforcement at this time was almost non-existent as well, which just compounded the problems.

With the closures, instead of increasing stocking for walleye, after about 1999 until 2006 there was virtually no stocking done, and still there is very little. Even now the government spends about 6 million a year on trout stocking and maybe 2 or 300 thousand on walleye.

Sask. stock about 15-30 walleye lakes every year, that commitment to their fishery and their very low angler/lake ratio are two very big reasons for their walleye fisheries being much better than ours.

I couldn't agree more. What Alberta is lacking is commitment to a plan. What they have done is go from one problem to another, with zero foresight as to what will happen next.

It seems that their method of planning is shared by some here, but it's just not working.

[SNAPFisher]

Hey Kurt, if you want a good read of history, research and perspective, open your narrow mind and give this a read:

https://donmeredith.wordpress.com/20...s-fish-crisis/

I like the title as it contains your "one fish solution to all the problems" in it. Kind of puts a perspective on things. The real gem is the content in it and work that went into it. I really do appreciate it.

Maybe you can read and see that talking about 1 fish, tags, slots really isn't the bigger picture and some dose of perspective on the bigger problems might make you reflect. I hope it does. The fact that it doesn't even focus on walleye should also help.

The only thing I can add is agreement the the article. I live on a farm as the 5th generation dating back to the 1800s. Hearing even the last 2 generations speak about the creek land we live on and how fish disappeared and now the water...now that speaks to me. I see it with my own eyes everyday. The land has changed and thus the fish with it.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Hey Kurt, if you want a good read of history, research and perspective, open your narrow mind and give this a read:

https://donmeredith.wordpress.com/20...s-fish-crisis/

I like the title as it contains your "one fish solution to all the problems" in it. Kind of puts a perspective on things. The real gem is the content in it and work that went into it. I really do appreciate it.

Maybe you can read and see that talking about 1 fish, tags, slots really isn't the bigger picture and some dose of perspective on the bigger problems might make you reflect. I hope it does. The fact that it doesn't even focus on walleye should also help.

The only thing I can add is agreement the the article. I live on a farm as the 5th generation dating back to the 1800s. Hearing even the last 2 generations speak about the creek land we live on and how fish disappeared and now the water...now that speaks to me. I see it with my own eyes everyday. The land has changed and thus the fish with it.

Why are you getting ignorant with me? Because you don't agree with me?

I thought we agreed to disagree and move on yesterday? You already lied to me on this thread, a couple times, so I'm sure you can understand why engaging in discussion with you is not something I'm interested in.

If you want to move on in a discussion with me, and keep the insults out of it I'll gladly read your link and discuss it with you. Otherwise I'm fine with just agreeing to disagree.

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

You aren't basing your argument on a healthy balance, strictly on a catch a walleye fishery. You haven't addressed the lakes which are grossly over populated with walleye.

It was a 5 fish, 10 retention fishery, of any size and it was left that way for too long. The case study we can base my suggestion on is Calling lake, it's a lake that has a 1 slot size fish regulation. And if you haven't noticed, it is a great proponent of my suggestion. Are there any other lakes they have tried this on?

You understand why I don't want to address poaching??? Are you suggesting I'm a poacher? Because you had better damn not be. Poachers are poachers and will poach if the limit is 0 or 50! Poachers and poaching is a whole other topic and won't change with regulations.

None of your post addressed a balanced fishery, it's solely aimed at walleye. You conveniently ignored the fact there are lakes with the pike and perch fishery collapsing because the lakes are grossly over populated with walleye.

Yes Alberta has a high angler to lake ratio, but a zero retention or near zero retention of walleye is obviously not the solution unless all you want is for Alberta to be a walleye only province. There are several lakes that are living proof of that.

The current plan of zero or near zero retention is just now starting to show its ill side effects, and with Albertas proven conservation track record of being a reactive system rather than a proactive system, it won't be long before we have totally collapsed pike and perch fisheries.

Yeah, actually, I am basing it on a healthy balance of all species. Not once in my posts have I specified a species that should be closed to retention or on a tag system, NOT EVEN ONCE. I've focused on the fishery as a whole. Check for yourself before you start making up any more false accusations or strawman arguments. YOU are the one that focused on walleye.

You seem to be obsessed with a few lakes that have what you deem to be overabundant walleye populations. I don't disagree that the walleye population in some lakes is out of balance. The way to address that is not by opening those lakes, or all lakes, to unlimited (which is what 1 per day per angler really is) retention. That's how you collapse them. The way to address that is with protecting the other species and introducing a limited, manageable walleye harvest, aka, a tag system.

I guess we'll never agree on what Calling Lake represents. You seem to hold it up as a beacon of success, where I see failure. You also see the overabundance of walleye and lack of pike/perch in some lakes as being due to zero walleye retention. I see it as being due to allowing retention of pike/perch at levels that are unsustainable resulting in their populations declining or collapsing. The collapse of pike/perch populations across the province is the proof right in front of you of the ill effects of a retention system. We robbed Peter to pay Paul. To think that spreading that pressure to walleye as well will solve the problem is very naive and flies in the face of all the evidence you have before you past and present about the effects of retention. We'll simply rob Peter AND Paul.

In no way did I suggest or imply that you're a poacher. Relax. I do understand why you don't want to address the issue of poaching/enforcement or simply write it off as "poachers gonna poach", and that's because it's the easy way out of a very complex problem.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Why are you getting ignorant with me? Because you don't agree with me?

I thought we agreed to disagree and move on yesterday? You already lied to me on this thread, a couple times, so I'm sure you can understand why engaging in discussion with you is not something I'm interested in.

If you want to move on in a discussion with me, and keep the insults out of it I'll gladly read your link and discuss it with you. Otherwise I'm fine with just agreeing to disagree.

Take your ball and go home I guess. Too bad you can't expand your mind a bit and read it. A shame really. It is worthy of a read.

[WoollyBuggered]

Originally Posted by Jamie Black R/T

Ive seen lots of posts against slot sizes for Alberta and I do acknowledge their merit.

What I dont see is proof that its anything more than a theory? Have slot sizes been implemented and failed in alberta?

Yes, north buck lake

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Take your ball and go home I guess. Too bad you can't expand your mind a bit and read it. A shame really. It is worthy of a read.

Lol!!! There is so much irony in your post.

Did you even read the link you posted???? Hahaha!!!

Maybe you should read it, start at the top where it covers lakes.... which is what we are talking about here, on this thread. Skip the part about net fishing and rivers, try to focus on the lake sport fishing aspects, then don't get back to me.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Lol!!! There is so much irony in your post.

Did you even read the link you posted???? Hahaha!!!

Maybe you should read it, start at the top where it covers lakes.... which is what we are talking about here, on this thread. Skip the part about net fishing and rivers, try to focus on the lake sport fishing aspects, then don't get back to me.

At least you are consistent. But please, focus on the lake and your own greed but ignore the bigger picture. I know you will anyways. So much for your management of other species if you think a lake is not impacted by all the rest. Too big for you huh. Thought so.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Walleyedude

Yeah, actually, I am basing it on a healthy balance of all species. Not once in my posts have I specified a species that should be closed to retention or on a tag system, NOT EVEN ONCE. I've focused on the fishery as a whole. Check for yourself before you start making up any more false accusations or strawman arguments. YOU are the one that focused on walleye.

You seem to be obsessed with a few lakes that have what you deem to be overabundant walleye populations. I don't disagree that the walleye population in some lakes is out of balance. The way to address that is not by opening those lakes, or all lakes, to unlimited (which is what 1 per day per angler really is) retention. That's how you collapse them. The way to address that is with protecting the other species and introducing a limited, manageable walleye harvest, aka, a tag system.

I guess we'll never agree on what Calling Lake represents. You seem to hold it up as a beacon of success, where I see failure. You also see the overabundance of walleye and lack of pike/perch in some lakes as being due to zero walleye retention. I see it as being due to allowing retention of pike/perch at levels that are unsustainable resulting in their populations declining or collapsing. The collapse of pike/perch populations across the province is the proof right in front of you of the ill effects of a retention system. We robbed Peter to pay Paul. To think that spreading that pressure to walleye as well will solve the problem is very naive and flies in the face of all the evidence you have before you past and present about the effects of retention. We'll simply rob Peter AND Paul.

In no way did I suggest or imply that you're a poacher. Relax. I do understand why you don't want to address the issue of poaching/enforcement or simply write it off as "poachers gonna poach", and that's because it's the easy way out of a very complex problem.

You might be surprised but I do agree with some of your points.

It not that I'm obsessed with a few lakes, there are many. And maybe one fish per person on a general basis is extreme, I still think retention tags should be bumped up, and introduced in a lot of lakes.

South Buck for instance. I think they should open up a draw on that lake for say 10 walleye under 50. I think you should be eligible to get drawn on multiple lakes. I don't disagree with it being a "lake by lake" case, and I totally agree with it being size limits.

Thank you for clarifying your position on my character regarding poaching.

[Bushleague]

Originally Posted by deanstr8

I have fished both South Buck and Slave this year, and although there are a lot in the 45cm range, I was still able to catch larger and smaller on a regular basis, especially at Lesser Slave. We landed 24-27 inchers for 3 hours straight in early June between dog island and the townsite. Buck is a bit harder to find big ones but they are there, my bud caught a 5.5lber there this year. All about patience, timing, location, presentation...which you all know already.

Any day on the water catching multiple fish is a good day...the amount of people I talk to that say the fishing is slow are either lying to me or have no clue what they are doing...I have been out 10+ times this year to several different lakes and it has always been a wide variety of walleye sizes. Just my 2 cents...

Slave is showing a lot more variety this year. Last night we caught every thing from undersized right up to a 65cm one that my daughter caught. The fish are also looking better fed than they usually do. I marked a few bigger fish that I think were large pike feeding on the drop off. In the past, yes, it could get pretty monotonous catching the exact same size of fish all day. I hate to jump the gun but I'm hoping it has something to do with shutting down the commercial fishing and will continue, this year I am starting to feel more optimistic about the future of my home lake than I have in a long time.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Bushleague

I hate to jump the gun but I'm hoping it has something to do with shutting down the commercial fishing and will continue, this year I am starting to feel more optimistic about the future of my home lake than I have in a long time.

Like in the link snap posted, I think square hooks play a much larger factor than they like to have us believe. If it was so detrimental to fish populations in the late 1800's and early 1900's, why was it no big deal for so long in more recent years?

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

You might be surprised but I do agree with some of your points.

It not that I'm obsessed with a few lakes, there are many. And maybe one fish per person on a general basis is extreme, I still think retention tags should be bumped up, and introduced in a lot of lakes.

South Buck for instance. I think they should open up a draw on that lake for say 10 walleye under 50. I think you should be eligible to get drawn on multiple lakes. I don't disagree with it being a "lake by lake" case, and I totally agree with it being size limits.

Thank you for clarifying your position on my character regarding poaching.

Where is that emoji of a bicycle going in reverse

So you are actually agreeing now with region and lake specific regs and even tags. Good stuff. If you really do believe this, then we are all talking the same thing and have been splitting hairs over nothing. Which is usually where these discussions keep going since we all really want the same thing.

I'm still pointing to the article as a great bigger picture on fisheries decline - streams, creeks, rivers, lakes...all linked. It certainly got me thinking about bigger problems and not just lake limits. Glad I found it.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Where is that emoji of a bicycle going in reverse

So you are actually agreeing now with region and lake specific regs and even tags. Good stuff. If you really do believe this, then we are all talking the same thing and have been splitting hairs over nothing. Which is usually where these discussions keep going since we all really want the same thing.

I'm still pointing to the article as a great bigger picture on fisheries decline - streams, creeks, rivers, lakes...all linked. It certainly got me thinking about bigger problems and not just lake limits. Glad I found it.

No, we don't really want the same thing.

I'm not interested in a sacrificial lamb as part of a solution, I'm not interested in a province full of stunted walleye, I want a healthy total fishery. Like having a healthy ungulate herd, predators play an important role. It's easy to shut down a fishery and cross your fingers, I want a more in depth solution, one that addresses a fishery not just a fish.

My suggestion of a one slot size fish for lakes across the province isn't far off what an increased tag system would be for average fishermen. Not all anglers go out every weekend, with the majority of anglers only getting out a handful of times in a season.

The only reason I choose not to buy include rivers and streams in this conversation is because it's specifically lake retention regulations we are talking about here. My thoughts on rivers and streams are polar opposites. Destruction of habitat starts to play a key roll in that fishery and is a way more in depth topic.