Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fishing Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 08-24-2017, 04:26 PM
The Spank The Spank is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 553
Default

I used to work in the fisheries section of the OMNR years ago doing trap netting and creel surveys on Lake Ni****ing. As the lake received more and more pressure the fish showing up in catches became smaller and smaller to the point fish of about 350-450 grams weight were the average. What was discovered through years of study was that the more pressure the lake received the younger and younger the fish got to reach spawning maturity. The average dropped from 7 years old to 3-4 years old. Though the fish responded to the fishing pressure by spawning at a younger age recruitment of young fish was lower due to the younger spawners not yet reaching their prime and producing the # of eggs a prime fish could. A series of proposals for regulation changes varied from everything from reducing harvest rates to ending ice fishing to disallowing wheeled vehicles on the ice etc., etc.
First applied was a reduction in limit from 6 to 4. That didn't change much if at all? Then came a slot limit. No retention of fish between 40cm & 60cm in length. It didn't take long to see the effects. Within two years the average fish being caught was getting larger. Still for a couple more seasons very few over 60cm were being caught however more and more 40+ were being caught and there was still ALOT of fish under 40 being caught and retained as thats what they wanted the fishermen to keep. The limit was still 4 too. So then something unexpected happened in that the 60+ started to be caught more frequently but during ice fishing primarily? So the question became why were these fish not showing up in open water seasons? So it came to be discovered shortly where these bigger fish were during an index survey dragging seine nets for an invasive species that suddenly started showing up, the spiny water flea. The spiny water flea if you have ever seen them has a tendency to get stuck on fishing lines and people were reporting and asking what this strange stuff was stuck to their lines? Alot of changes were happening in the span of about a decade. The water clarity was improving and as it turned out spiny water fleas eat zooplankton which caused the water clarity to improve. The worry became that baitfish and young gamefish also rely upon zooplankton hence the index survey. Well another change was the perch were getting much larger and much brighter coloured fins etc? The index survey showed that the perch were now suspending in the water column over their deeper summer haunts and gorging thenselves on spiny water fleas. The bigger Walleye in turn were suspending now too and gorging themselves on the Perch. The whole eco-sytem had taken a complete turn in a span of about 15 years and the quality and quantity of fish had improved drastically between environmental changes and regulations. The whole thing is in turmoil again due to overharvesting of the prime spawners thanks to the ON Gov't allowing indegionuos peoples to have free reign even though they have set restrictions but thats another story....slots do work though!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-24-2017, 05:22 PM
Talking moose's Avatar
Talking moose Talking moose is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: McBride/Prince George
Posts: 14,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Spank View Post
I used to work in the fisheries section of the OMNR years ago doing trap netting and creel surveys on Lake Ni****ing. As the lake received more and more pressure the fish showing up in catches became smaller and smaller to the point fish of about 350-450 grams weight were the average. What was discovered through years of study was that the more pressure the lake received the younger and younger the fish got to reach spawning maturity. The average dropped from 7 years old to 3-4 years old. Though the fish responded to the fishing pressure by spawning at a younger age recruitment of young fish was lower due to the younger spawners not yet reaching their prime and producing the # of eggs a prime fish could. A series of proposals for regulation changes varied from everything from reducing harvest rates to ending ice fishing to disallowing wheeled vehicles on the ice etc., etc.
First applied was a reduction in limit from 6 to 4. That didn't change much if at all? Then came a slot limit. No retention of fish between 40cm & 60cm in length. It didn't take long to see the effects. Within two years the average fish being caught was getting larger. Still for a couple more seasons very few over 60cm were being caught however more and more 40+ were being caught and there was still ALOT of fish under 40 being caught and retained as thats what they wanted the fishermen to keep. The limit was still 4 too. So then something unexpected happened in that the 60+ started to be caught more frequently but during ice fishing primarily? So the question became why were these fish not showing up in open water seasons? So it came to be discovered shortly where these bigger fish were during an index survey dragging seine nets for an invasive species that suddenly started showing up, the spiny water flea. The spiny water flea if you have ever seen them has a tendency to get stuck on fishing lines and people were reporting and asking what this strange stuff was stuck to their lines? Alot of changes were happening in the span of about a decade. The water clarity was improving and as it turned out spiny water fleas eat zooplankton which caused the water clarity to improve. The worry became that baitfish and young gamefish also rely upon zooplankton hence the index survey. Well another change was the perch were getting much larger and much brighter coloured fins etc? The index survey showed that the perch were now suspending in the water column over their deeper summer haunts and gorging thenselves on spiny water fleas. The bigger Walleye in turn were suspending now too and gorging themselves on the Perch. The whole eco-sytem had taken a complete turn in a span of about 15 years and the quality and quantity of fish had improved drastically between environmental changes and regulations. The whole thing is in turmoil again due to overharvesting of the prime spawners thanks to the ON Gov't allowing indegionuos peoples to have free reign even though they have set restrictions but thats another story....slots do work though!
Very good and interesting report. I find the Scientology of fish and fishing more interesting than fishing itself.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-24-2017, 05:34 PM
The Spank The Spank is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 553
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talking moose View Post
Very good and interesting report. I find the Scientology of fish and fishing more interesting than fishing itself.
I was fortunate in that even though I lost that job due to budget cuts the head of fisheries and another fellow who worked at the local hatchery were both skeet shooting companions and occasionally we fished together so the conversations were often very informative. I never missed an opportunity to ask questions or listen when topics of fisheries management came up.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-24-2017, 05:38 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Spank View Post
I used to work in the fisheries section of the OMNR years ago doing trap netting and creel surveys on Lake Ni****ing. As the lake received more and more pressure the fish showing up in catches became smaller and smaller to the point fish of about 350-450 grams weight were the average. What was discovered through years of study was that the more pressure the lake received the younger and younger the fish got to reach spawning maturity. The average dropped from 7 years old to 3-4 years old. Though the fish responded to the fishing pressure by spawning at a younger age recruitment of young fish was lower due to the younger spawners not yet reaching their prime and producing the # of eggs a prime fish could. A series of proposals for regulation changes varied from everything from reducing harvest rates to ending ice fishing to disallowing wheeled vehicles on the ice etc., etc.
First applied was a reduction in limit from 6 to 4. That didn't change much if at all? Then came a slot limit. No retention of fish between 40cm & 60cm in length. It didn't take long to see the effects. Within two years the average fish being caught was getting larger. Still for a couple more seasons very few over 60cm were being caught however more and more 40+ were being caught and there was still ALOT of fish under 40 being caught and retained as thats what they wanted the fishermen to keep. The limit was still 4 too. So then something unexpected happened in that the 60+ started to be caught more frequently but during ice fishing primarily? So the question became why were these fish not showing up in open water seasons? So it came to be discovered shortly where these bigger fish were during an index survey dragging seine nets for an invasive species that suddenly started showing up, the spiny water flea. The spiny water flea if you have ever seen them has a tendency to get stuck on fishing lines and people were reporting and asking what this strange stuff was stuck to their lines? Alot of changes were happening in the span of about a decade. The water clarity was improving and as it turned out spiny water fleas eat zooplankton which caused the water clarity to improve. The worry became that baitfish and young gamefish also rely upon zooplankton hence the index survey. Well another change was the perch were getting much larger and much brighter coloured fins etc? The index survey showed that the perch were now suspending in the water column over their deeper summer haunts and gorging thenselves on spiny water fleas. The bigger Walleye in turn were suspending now too and gorging themselves on the Perch. The whole eco-sytem had taken a complete turn in a span of about 15 years and the quality and quantity of fish had improved drastically between environmental changes and regulations. The whole thing is in turmoil again due to overharvesting of the prime spawners thanks to the ON Gov't allowing indegionuos peoples to have free reign even though they have set restrictions but thats another story....slots do work though!

There are some here who wouldn't believe you, I was arguing with them just a couple weeks ago. I'm very glad you posted this, like moose said, very interesting findings and proof slot sizes work.

Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-24-2017, 05:47 PM
Talking moose's Avatar
Talking moose Talking moose is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: McBride/Prince George
Posts: 14,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
There are some here who wouldn't believe you, I was arguing with them just a couple weeks ago. I'm very glad you posted this, like moose said, very interesting findings and proof slot sizes work.

Thank you.
Not sure if it's that cut and dry though. (Water fleas and Canadian Shield lakes vs fertile prairie lakes) factors to consider.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-24-2017, 05:53 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talking moose View Post
Not sure if it's that cut and dry though. (Water fleas and Canadian Shield lakes vs fertile prairie lakes) factors to consider.
Nothing is ever that cut and dry, but if there's a study that shows it works it can definitely be a step in the right direction.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-24-2017, 06:14 PM
The Spank The Spank is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 553
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
There are some here who wouldn't believe you, I was arguing with them just a couple weeks ago. I'm very glad you posted this, like moose said, very interesting findings and proof slot sizes work.

Thank you.
Slots do work and work well if fisherman will honour them. With Ni****ing being a relatively deep lake there were concerns over fish mortality from catch and release during the winter months as the walleye are generally caught in 30' to 44' of water at that time. As you know their air bladders tend to extend when brought up from those depths. Education was the key in getting fisherman to bring fish up slowly so to reduce that issue. One of the proposals initially had been to not enforce a slot size in winter and reduce the limit from 4 to 3. That never came to be and the slot remained in effect. I know I put a handful of 55-59 cm walleye back in the hole over a couple seasons and all were in good shape and turned and headed for bottom with a shake of a tail and water splashed in my face. It was discovered after a few seasons of research the mortality rate was not near as high as had been predicted. Summer was not an issue as most of the fisherman didn't bother chasing the walleye after they left the shallow waters as they warmed up when post spawn spring turned to summer. Most didn't like venturing offshore 6+ miles on the big water to find them. They hung around the closer to shore bays and islands and pursued the abundant bass more.
Now back to slots. Yes they work. For the first 10 or so years I fished Ni****ing fish to 35cm were the most abundant and fish over 40cm were not very plentiful. Over 50cm were rare as hens teeth. I can remember my first year trapling spawning walleye for an experimental Walleye restocking program. Of all the fish we caught to collect eggs from at the biggest spawning grounds on the lake we collected only two females over 8 pounds and less than 6 from 3-5 pounds. The rest (hundreds & hundreds) were the 35cm fish. Within 5 -6 years of the slot size introduction (no retention 40-60cm) there were more slot sized fish spawning and very few of the 35cm fish there and the 35cm that were there were now almost 100% males. When I left in 2012 you could still regularily catch a limit of keeper size fish (under 40cm) but you would usually throw back 4-6 40+ for every under 40 you caught.
I personally think Alberta Fisheries needs to address their management system. Cold Lake for example, I have not participated in or read any studies from there but I would think those 50+cm Walleye they allow three of to be kept are their prime female spawners. Even on Ni****ing they allowed over 60cm to be retained but only one in your limit of 4 could be over 60cm, the rest had to be under 40cm. To allow three over 50cm to me is removing your females and I know from my sex ed classes as a kid two males can't reproduce?! I think a no retention slot of prime spawners would serve Alberta's fishermen and Alberta's waters very well. At least that's my opinion based on what I experienced and as a side note all the waters in the area of Northern Ontario I resided and played in had slot sizes though not all were identical. Many were tailored to the different fishery zones based on many factors but the first consideration was usually fishing pressure received.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-24-2017, 09:34 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Apples to oranges.

but

Must read.

Check this out:

http://www.nugget.ca/2014/03/25/mnr-...at-two-walleye

Oh no. They are thinking about doing like Alberta. lol

Some apples to oranges would include:

* Fourth largest lake in Ont.(excluding great lakes)
* Shallow for a large lake - avg depth about 15 feet.
* Much further South than in AB Longer growing season.
* Spawn at age 3 versus age 5 here.
* Way more water bodies in Ontarible.
And more.

Edit: The Spank- Education should be do not fish in water over 25', 30' at the most. You/people wont wait long enough to safely bring them up in deep water. Surprised that bios would tell you that.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.

Last edited by huntsfurfish; 08-24-2017 at 09:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-24-2017, 09:40 PM
Talking moose's Avatar
Talking moose Talking moose is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: McBride/Prince George
Posts: 14,521
Default

Round 2.....
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-24-2017, 09:44 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talking moose View Post
Round 2.....
More like round 600 for me. one for each water body in AB.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.

Last edited by huntsfurfish; 08-24-2017 at 09:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 08-24-2017, 09:53 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talking moose View Post
Round 2.....
Sometimes even proof isn't proof enough......
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-24-2017, 09:55 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
Sometimes even proof isn't proof enough......
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-24-2017, 09:57 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
What proof? Because a poster said.
I know, I know, only you are the provider of real proof. Forgive me oh wise one.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-24-2017, 09:58 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
I know, I know, only you are the provider of real proof. Forgive me oh wise one.
You are finally right.lol
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-24-2017, 10:00 PM
Talking moose's Avatar
Talking moose Talking moose is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: McBride/Prince George
Posts: 14,521
Default

Kuumbiya
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-24-2017, 10:02 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
You are finally right.lol
If you say so, I guess it must be true.

I think you missed your calling.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-24-2017, 11:01 PM
The Spank The Spank is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 553
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
Apples to oranges.

but

Must read.

Check this out:

http://www.nugget.ca/2014/03/25/mnr-...at-two-walleye

Oh no. They are thinking about doing like Alberta. lol

Some apples to oranges would include:

* Fourth largest lake in Ont.(excluding great lakes)
* Shallow for a large lake - avg depth about 15 feet.
* Much further South than in AB Longer growing season.
* Spawn at age 3 versus age 5 here.
* Way more water bodies in Ontarible.
And more.

Edit: The Spank- Education should be do not fish in water over 25', 30' at the most. You/people wont wait long enough to safely bring them up in deep water. Surprised that bios would tell you that.
Yes I have heard about this from many friends still residing in the area. Personally I believe what has taken place from accounts of friends andxwhatcI was witnessing prior to my departure from Ontario is an "if you can't beat them join them" attitude attributed to the year round netting and overharvesting of fish from the out of control Ni****ing First Nations Band. Every smoke shop, variety store, chip stand, gas bar and a number of private individuals with signs in front of their houses advertising walleye for sale is selling the stuff from North Bay to Sturgeon Falls (reservation lands) and undoing years of hard work and dedication by the true sportsman and tourism stakeholders in the area. But of course we cannot say that publicly?! Sad, sad, sad.....

And yes there is a HUGE difference in the number of waterbodies between AB and ON, about 250,000 difference to be exact!
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-25-2017, 12:14 AM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

Count the waterbodies close to the population in ON and the angler/waterbody in that area and I think you will be surprised when you compare it to here.

The only reason they have decent fishing within hours of the main cities is because of how massive and productive the great lakes are. Without them their fishing would be worse then ours.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-25-2017, 12:27 AM
Talking moose's Avatar
Talking moose Talking moose is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: McBride/Prince George
Posts: 14,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
Count the waterbodies close to the population in ON and the angler/waterbody in that area and I think you will be surprised when you compare it to here.

The only reason they have decent fishing within hours of the main cities is because of how massive and productive the great lakes are. Without them their fishing would be worse then ours.
All true..^ Alberta lakes in general are more fertile and grow fish faster than the cold clear Canadian Shield lakes. Put pressure on a smaller shield lake and that lake would go belly up faster than our lakes.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-25-2017, 05:44 AM
58thecat's Avatar
58thecat 58thecat is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: At the end of the Thirsty Beaver Trail, Pinsky lake, Alberta.
Posts: 24,502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcon View Post
I got half way through that survey and declined to submit. It will provide little to no value and was a horrendous example of steering people into one bad option over another. Worse yet, they will use it as part of their decision making process, so scary.
Yup, and they do what they want anyways in which most doesn't make sense, maybe one of those fine educated individuals should take a close look at this thread and see some great input right here as apposed to steering people to answer thier questions with thier answer selection etc. Oh wait and see what gets out out in the regs next season.
__________________

Be careful when you follow the masses, sometimes the "M" is silent...
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 08-25-2017, 06:52 AM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
There are some here who wouldn't believe you, I was arguing with them just a couple weeks ago. I'm very glad you posted this, like moose said, very interesting findings and proof slot sizes work.

Thank you.
Did you take the survey? Make sure you add comments on slot size limits and links. I think there is room in the comments for a general 1 fish limit.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-25-2017, 07:58 AM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher View Post
Did you take the survey? Make sure you add comments on slot size limits and links. I think there is room in the comments for a general 1 fish limit.
Too late, I filled out the survey a couple weeks ago when I first got the email.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-25-2017, 09:01 AM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
Too late, I filled out the survey a couple weeks ago when I first got the email.
Good for you!
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-25-2017, 01:13 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talking moose View Post
All true..^ Alberta lakes in general are more fertile and grow fish faster than the cold clear Canadian Shield lakes. Put pressure on a smaller shield lake and that lake would go belly up faster than our lakes.
Actually there are a lot of very fertile "fish factories" in Southern Ontario. Lots of shallow water, weeds, farming etc. Kawarthas, Simcoe, Lake St Claire, Scugog and Rice to name but just a few (and large to boot by Alberta Standards).

Fastest growing walleye are thought to be in a shallow reservoir in Southern Alberta. That would be Keho reservoir.

The further south the lake or water body = longer growing season. And the fact that keho is hard pressed to find 28 ft of water really helps.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-27-2017, 10:33 AM
petecatch petecatch is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 19
Default

Cover up of the underlying problem supported by misleading statistics:

Quote:
We have only 800-odd natural fish bearing lakes, with another 300 lakes stocked with trout. In comparison, other provinces, such as Saskatchewan have many tens of thousands of lakes. As a result, there are approximately 375 fishers per lake in Alberta, while Saskatchewan has 1.9 fishers, Manitoba has 1.7 and Ontario has 2.3 fishers per lake.
These stats are so crazy different, they're suspect, so then you think..

Most of the anglers in SK, MB and ON live in the Southern section and there are less lakes in the south, angling pressure is very similar for the amount of water. Stats Canada shows that.

Dig further and it's not hard to find the underlying cause. Alberta stocks no walleye and stocks embarrassingly few fish:

2016:
SK: 11.2million, 9.9 million walleye
ON: ~8milion
AB: 1.3milion, 0 walleye

SK stocks 800% more fish than AB, and ON stocks 600% more.

Alberta gets nearly twice the revenue from angling licenses. What is our money being used for? It's being mismanaged, and they want us to pay for it too.

There are options on the survey that are not provided, like "More Stocking".

The survey is biased, misleading and supports an underlying agenda. We need to wise up, the last few surveys have also been biased in this way too.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-27-2017, 12:05 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by petecatch View Post
Cover up of the underlying problem supported by misleading statistics:



These stats are so crazy different, they're suspect, so then you think..

Most of the anglers in SK, MB and ON live in the Southern section and there are less lakes in the south, angling pressure is very similar for the amount of water. Stats Canada shows that.

Dig further and it's not hard to find the underlying cause. Alberta stocks no walleye and stocks embarrassingly few fish:

2016:
SK: 11.2million, 9.9 million walleye
ON: ~8milion
AB: 1.3milion, 0 walleye

SK stocks 800% more fish than AB, and ON stocks 600% more.

Alberta gets nearly twice the revenue from angling licenses. What is our money being used for? It's being mismanaged, and they want us to pay for it too.

There are options on the survey that are not provided, like "More Stocking".

The survey is biased, misleading and supports an underlying agenda. We need to wise up, the last few surveys have also been biased in this way too.
quote "Most of the anglers in SK, MB and ON live in the Southern section and there are less lakes in the south, angling pressure is very similar for the amount of water. Stats Canada shows that." quote

Except that most of Albertas lakes are in the North as well. Should also mention not only more water bodies in those other provinces but much larger water bodies as well. Lake Diefenbaker(south) 800km shoreline alone has more water than all the water south of Red deer. Manitoba has Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnepeg in the South. Ontario has Lake of the Woods, Nipigon, Superior, Huron, Ni****ing, Simcoe, Erie and Ontario as well as some that I mentioned in a previous post.



Quote "Dig further and it's not hard to find the underlying cause. Alberta stocks no walleye and stocks embarrassingly few fish:

2016:
SK: 11.2million, 9.9 million walleye
ON: ~8milion
AB: 1.3milion, 0 walleye

SK stocks 800% more fish than AB, and ON stocks 600% more.
quote

Alberta stocks trout for put and take fishery. Stocks walleye when needed.
Stocking walleye just to stock walleye is not a good use of our underfunded fisheries. And if recruitment is good it is basically just wasteful.


Quote "Alberta gets nearly twice the revenue from angling licenses. What is our money being used for? It's being mismanaged, and they want us to pay for it too." quote

Money for licenses goes to ACA and licence provider. Government gets the 5%. Many threads about all of this for you to catch up on. And Alberta licenses still very low.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 08-27-2017, 01:13 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,440
Default

HuntsForFish pretty much nailed the response.

Also, Petey, since you like correlations, do you think there is a correlation between the number of lakes and stocking numbers. That is, more lakes, more to stock, naturally. Doh! Thanks for playing.

Actually a good stat would be amount stocked per acre of water...or something more comparative.

Also providing comments and though email - to the one specified, makes it easy to provide whatever input you want. So don't complain that they asked and the way the asked it. Did you expect them to just leave it blank? Seems simple to answer and simple to add more if you want to. Emphasis on "IF" you want to.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-27-2017, 02:49 PM
petecatch petecatch is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 19
Default

Quote:
Stocks walleye when needed.
Stocking walleye just to stock walleye is not a good use of our underfunded fisheries. And if recruitment is good it is basically just wasteful
Many lakes now have 0 walleye limits, these are ideal candidates for stocking walleye. Underfunded? SK can do it with less revenue, AB can too.

Quote:
Money for licenses goes to ACA and licence provider. Government gets the 5%. Many threads about all of this for you to catch up on. And Alberta licenses still very low.
Real simple, the money should be going to maintaining the resource. If most of the money goes to ACA and the license provider, and non of those are maintaining the resource adequately, then money is being poorly spent.

Quote:
Petey, since you like correlations, do you think there is a correlation between the number of lakes and stocking numbers. That is, more lakes, more to stock, naturally. Doh! Thanks for playing.
Snappy, do you think it matters how many lakes you have and stocking numbers if the number of walleye stocked = a big fat zero? Walleye are the most desired fish in AB, even the walleye draws are sold out each year, the masses want em so much they're prepared to pay extra for tags.

We are told we have the most demand, and yet we stock less than the other provinces by as much as 800%. Doh.

Stocking for sustainability is a great pie in the sky ideal, but the boats long sailed on that for all the provinces. SK, ON, MB all stock to maintain stocks according to the fishing pressure. They're not stocking for sustainability, they're stocking for fish mortality due to C&R and C&K.

If we're losing fish out of our lakes like we're told, then there's room to replace them each year rather than just hoping stocks will recover without intervention.

Here is how the ACA money is spent:

Administration of the ACA: $1.8 million
Fisheries: $2.3 million
Stocking: $0.3 million
Price per stocked fish = 30c

Checkout this:
http://www.ab-conservation.com/downl...ating_plan.pdf

Obvious ones to save money on for 1 or more years:
$94,000 (Pike and Walleye Surveys, instead put money to stock Pike and Walleye)
$160,000 (Upper Bow Survey)

Take 5 mins out of your day to lobby for more stocking.

Contact:
AB.Fisheries@gov.ab.ca
dave.park@gov.ab.ca
aep.minister@gov.ab.ca
info@ab-conservation.com
your MP

Email:
Subject: Stocking more fish
Alberta last year received $8.6 million from fishing license revenue and only $390,000 (estimated) was spent on stocking 1.3 million trout. AB Fisheries tells us that stocks are depleting and not sustainable, however Alberta is not stocking enough fish to balance the number of anglers.

I am asking that Alberta significantly increases fish stocking promptly to the level of SK/ON, e.g.:

SK: 11 million fish stocked (9 million walleye)
ON: 8 million fish

and that Alberta stock walleye and pike to replenish the low stocks we are told we have for those fish.

Regards
(name goes here)
(location)
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08-27-2017, 04:43 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Pete, you're wasting your time explaining things to some people, don't worry about it. They'll only believe what suits them.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-27-2017, 07:23 PM
EZM's Avatar
EZM EZM is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 11,851
Default

Every specific watershed has it's own unique conditions and problems that vary by contribution. Any strategy where "one shoe fits all" is clearly flawed.

We need more bios (doing studies) to effect and sustain improvement to our fisheries IMO.

We have far too many failed experiments here to deal with already.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.