Alberta limits, size slot, and others...

[addicted]

Tags are not the answer in my opinion. One under 14" lets say and one over 27" this leaves a huge spawning base and should keep a constant flow of under 14" fish and lots of large fish.

[schmedlap]

I've read through this entire thread, which just reinforces my view that the people who are on here really care about the resource and it's proper protection. Many excellent and perceptive comments and suggestions. I'd like to add my own.
As to the "volunteer" F & W, back in the late 80's I tried to promote that idea from within the "powers that be". I "volunteered" because of a couple of incidents that I experienced. I was, very rationally, shot down in flames over the issues of liability and risk. It came home to me when a buddy and I were fishing the NSR where it comes into Abraham Lake one day (in my old Zodiac with a "putt-putt" motor), and catching and releasing a number of small bulls (10-20") on a very legal basis. It was shortly after the government had put the "no bait" regs in for a number of such places, and the "0 limit" for bulls. Two trucks full of "fishermen" pulled up to the bank and commenced casting worms out into the current, hauling in the small bulls, and throwing them in buckets. Against the instincts and wise (as it turns out?) advice of my fishing partner, I headed over to "educate" the yardapes on the new regs. Thankfully, I didn't pull all the way in to the bank or get out, because they not only laughed me off, they started pitching rocks at us. Now, we did not have cell phones at that time. So, just being pretty ****ed (and luckily not having been hit in the skull with any of those rocks), I memorized the license numbers, and stopped in Nordegg on the way home to report them to the local authorities. Never heard anything, so I assume nothing happened (?). Regardless of whether I carried any "badge of authority" those idiots would have just tossed me in the river (or worse?), when I had no firepower or uniform to back me up. Another time, same general historical time period, we were at Brown Creek, and a young lad (13-14?) was catching, and keeping, some bigger bulls (up to 5-6 lbs) using steak/liver chunks on a hook. He was pretty proud of it, and his Dad was not amenable to my attempts to educate them on the disadvantages of that approach - had it not been for my (reluctant?) back up in sheer numbers of people, that ape probably would have beat the crap out of me. And, again, no way to "turn them in" quickly. I called it in when I got home, but, again, never heard further. Now, maybe times have changed, in the sense of instant communication options, but given the lack of real resouces devoted to such things ....?
The people who are the problem don't even pick up the regs, if they even buy a license, let alone read them - there is little chance of being caught and facing any actual enforcement. Even when the grossly overstretched F&W people do manage to catch these morons, the penalties are pretty lax, with few exceptions. The F&W people we do have, in my experience, are very dedicated and conscientious about their task - we need to give them way more resources. There is no point at all to regs you cannot enforce (?).
And, I am definitely a bit of a "libertarian" in terms of the government telling me what I can and cannot do. The current regs are complicated enough, for those who actually read them and try to comply (I suspect, from experience, a rather small percentage of the fishers out there?). The solution is not more complicated regs, but, rather, more education and enforcement!! I don't pretend to know how to do that in the current environment, but I will continue to bring these things to the attention of my MLA, and there are a number of good ideas in this thread. Sooner or later, if you keep "bugging" them, maybe there will be "our champion" in the legislature(?).
As to the issue of "keep" regulations, all I will say is that it has to be adaptive to the particular location and productivity. There are VERY few "over 100" pike left in locations where one can keep one of those, as the "limit". Who wants to eat a 20 year old Pike? Most such places offer a very easy option (often "bycatch" when one is pursuing the big gals) of keeping a couple of much tastier, and smaller, Walleye. I am just, frankly, almost sick when I see someone "filleting" one of those really big old Pike, just because (maybe?) they can't keep a 65 (still not wise, but ...?). There should be an absolute ban on removing those old girls, with their good genes (to survive and be available to catch, whether or not they still breed?) - no better thrill?), everywhere. Maybe it should extend to the really big Walleye too (I have eaten some 8-12 pounders out of Tobin - no matter what gloss you put on it, and the fact they grow so much faster there, they are not that great). My boys and I target big Pike, for the thrill of the catch, and would never for one instant think of killing one - the thrill of the catch and the picture are priceless. Who really needs the meat? I would feel very guilty indeed if I was unable to revive and release one of those magnificent fish. But, we are in this for the sport, not the meat, or the "glory" of showing off a huge frozen fish (?). The issue really is how do we "educate" the public, the people who currently don't give a damn about the health of our fisheries. and how do we actually enforce reasonable regs in a way that has some impact?

Originally Posted by schmedlap

I've read through this entire thread, which just reinforces my view that the people who are on here really care about the resource and it's proper protection. Many excellent and perceptive comments and suggestions. I'd like to add my own.
As to the "volunteer" F & W, back in the late 80's I tried to promote that idea from within the "powers that be". I "volunteered" because of a couple of incidents that I experienced. I was, very rationally, shot down in flames over the issues of liability and risk. It came home to me when a buddy and I were fishing the NSR where it comes into Abraham Lake one day (in my old Zodiac with a "putt-putt" motor), and catching and releasing a number of small bulls (10-20") on a very legal basis. It was shortly after the government had put the "no bait" regs in for a number of such places, and the "0 limit" for bulls. Two trucks full of "fishermen" pulled up to the bank and commenced casting worms out into the current, hauling in the small bulls, and throwing them in buckets. Against the instincts and wise (as it turns out?) advice of my fishing partner, I headed over to "educate" the yardapes on the new regs. Thankfully, I didn't pull all the way in to the bank or get out, because they not only laughed me off, they started pitching rocks at us. Now, we did not have cell phones at that time. So, just being pretty ****ed (and luckily not having been hit in the skull with any of those rocks), I memorized the license numbers, and stopped in Nordegg on the way home to report them to the local authorities. Never heard anything, so I assume nothing happened (?). Regardless of whether I carried any "badge of authority" those idiots would have just tossed me in the river (or worse?), when I had no firepower or uniform to back me up. Another time, same general historical time period, we were at Brown Creek, and a young lad (13-14?) was catching, and keeping, some bigger bulls (up to 5-6 lbs) using steak/liver chunks on a hook. He was pretty proud of it, and his Dad was not amenable to my attempts to educate them on the disadvantages of that approach - had it not been for my (reluctant?) back up in sheer numbers of people, that ape probably would have beat the crap out of me. And, again, no way to "turn them in" quickly. I called it in when I got home, but, again, never heard further. Now, maybe times have changed, in the sense of instant communication options, but given the lack of real resouces devoted to such things ....?
The people who are the problem don't even pick up the regs, if they even buy a license, let alone read them - there is little chance of being caught and facing any actual enforcement. Even when the grossly overstretched F&W people do manage to catch these morons, the penalties are pretty lax, with few exceptions. The F&W people we do have, in my experience, are very dedicated and conscientious about their task - we need to give them way more resources. There is no point at all to regs you cannot enforce (?).
And, I am definitely a bit of a "libertarian" in terms of the government telling me what I can and cannot do. The current regs are complicated enough, for those who actually read them and try to comply (I suspect, from experience, a rather small percentage of the fishers out there?). The solution is not more complicated regs, but, rather, more education and enforcement!! I don't pretend to know how to do that in the current environment, but I will continue to bring these things to the attention of my MLA, and there are a number of good ideas in this thread. Sooner or later, if you keep "bugging" them, maybe there will be "our champion" in the legislature(?).
As to the issue of "keep" regulations, all I will say is that it has to be adaptive to the particular location and productivity. There are VERY few "over 100" pike left in locations where one can keep one of those, as the "limit". Who wants to eat a 20 year old Pike? Most such places offer a very easy option (often "bycatch" when one is pursuing the big gals) of keeping a couple of much tastier, and smaller, Walleye. I am just, frankly, almost sick when I see someone "filleting" one of those really big old Pike, just because (maybe?) they can't keep a 65 (still not wise, but ...?). There should be an absolute ban on removing those old girls, with their good genes (to survive and be available to catch, whether or not they still breed?) - no better thrill?), everywhere. Maybe it should extend to the really big Walleye too (I have eaten some 8-12 pounders out of Tobin - no matter what gloss you put on it, and the fact they grow so much faster there, they are not that great). My boys and I target big Pike, for the thrill of the catch, and would never for one instant think of killing one - the thrill of the catch and the picture are priceless. Who really needs the meat? I would feel very guilty indeed if I was unable to revive and release one of those magnificent fish. But, we are in this for the sport, not the meat, or the "glory" of showing off a huge frozen fish (?). The issue really is how do we "educate" the public, the people who currently don't give a damn about the health of our fisheries. and how do we actually enforce reasonable regs in a way that has some impact?

Bravo. Well said. Risk to personal safety must be first. Triple or quadruple the license fee but not to general revenue. Specific to fisheries efforts. Your comments about the big girls are true. My fork only holds a bite at a time. They cant get to fifty if you take at forty. Etc.


One more thought that crossed my mind on slot sizes. With pike the males stop at 12lbs or so. Only females grow larger. So it would seem we could damage a fishery by slot sizing pike and over fishing the males accidentally . Im sure fisheries considered this but would like info on this aspect jfmoi. Also guys have stated that the large fish eat too much as a reason to take them. Well they dont eat minnow but spawn alot so i dont see the point. In addition grandma has a slow metabolism focused on saving energy. So i think its only the young adolescents who are burning up the calories.

[wind drift]

Originally Posted by Pikebreath

My memory doesn't remember the exact details on this but short 'harvest seasons" have been tried on a select few lakes in the past. Long Lake (walleye) near Boyle was one these lakes and I believe there a lake near St Paul as well. The harvest period was longer than the weekend you suggest,, (maybe a couple weeks?) ... Anyways the long and the short of it was angling pressure was concentrated (actually excessive) on these lakes during the open season and even with low limits, it didn't take long to harvest more fish than was desired. Perhaps someone with a better memory can enligthen us more on this.

You're memory is accurate. It was Long Lake and it was shocking how quickly the fishery was depleted in such a short time. I think that 'experiment' should be repeated every so often to remind us about how much potential pressure there is on our fisheries. Remember how badly collapsed our walleye populations were in the 80's? THAT was mismanagement! Alberta is in a unique situation. Fish-bearing waters are extremely few. They're unproductive compared to more southern locales. Humans are high in number and affluent, with time to fish. There are no access restrictions. We can fish anywhere there are fish to be caught. We expect to have high quantity and quality fishing pretty much everywhere. This scenario creates a tough situation for management. Despite all this, most of our collapsed walleye fisheries have recovered, some spectacularly. Pike and most trout are holding their own, with a few notable stars that likely rank with the best. We should be really worried about some fish like grayling and native rainbows, but I bet that's got more to do with land use than fishing. What we have now is not caused by poor science or management , but quite the opposite and it needs to be supported and strengthened. The situation is only going to get tougher.

[slough shark]

Reading through this thread I am seeing a number of ideas that are interesting and some that have merit and some that of course could use a little more work . What I am seeing is people concerned for the quality and quantity of the fishery, which had me thinking what are some of the things that we could do to improve our fisheries aside from changing of some of the regulations on what we can keep etc... Some of the biggest issues with a number of lakes have to do with the fertility of the water, we need to work on individual lakes to improve the biomass that it is capable of holding. Sadly I suspect that this isn't going to be initiated at the government level, they simply don't have the will to put the necessary funds into doing this. An interesting concept I've thought of (albeit fairly undeveloped and rudimentary) is to create funds for individual lakes (with funding from private sources) that would hire biologists to study and moniter individual lakes and create a plans to increase the biomass. All the government would have to do is allow these plans to proceed after reviewing the proposal and then give the thumbs up. Some of these would be fairly simple (adding aerators) others would be a little more complex (working on the water quality so as to allow the lake to develop from the bottom up (plankton-invertebrates- forage minnows etc...) others would be habitat enhancement, water flow management in southern reservoirs, enhancing prey populations etc...) Either way I think if we were to work on the lakes we would end up with far better fisheries in the long run.