Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fishing Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-21-2017, 10:00 PM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default Pike and Walleye Management Surveys

Hope you guys feel like wasting a few hours reading and filling out surveys cause they just dumped a bunch more on us.

They are giving us anglers a say on some things but not all. As expected a bias towards more tags and or C&R but a couple chances to open up fisheries if enough people vote to do so.

https://talkaep.alberta.ca/northern-..._tool#tool_tab
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-22-2017, 11:40 AM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,440
Default

Good to see additional input asked for. Looks like they are sharpening the focus. The best part is at least you can provide input. I encourage anyone interested to take them. Doesn't mean you can't take a departure stance on any of these.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-22-2017, 11:53 AM
guru fisher guru fisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 406
Default

for one summer open up 1 walleye slot size see how the lakes manage it. simple
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-22-2017, 11:57 AM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guru fisher View Post
for one summer open up 1 walleye slot size see how the lakes manage it. simple
That has been beat to death on here. Pretty much to the point of ridiculous...by some.

Regardless, that is obviously not the management direction that will be taken but you are certainly welcome to voice that to the powers that be.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-23-2017, 11:29 AM
PlayDoh's Avatar
PlayDoh PlayDoh is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Strathmore/Calgary
Posts: 1,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guru fisher View Post
for one summer open up 1 walleye slot size see how the lakes manage it. simple

1 - it would take years if not decades to know how a Lake was effected by that.
2 - all lakes are different. Some near collapse some near over-populated.
3 - some lakes couldn’t ‘manage’ it and that kind of experiment would just kill them. Then what?
It’s kinda like saying “let everyone take a moose and we’ll see if there’s any left after a year”.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Theres a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-23-2017, 02:22 PM
Tikka300's Avatar
Tikka300 Tikka300 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Grande Prairie
Posts: 188
Default

Good to see they are asking for public input but horrible survey design. All questions are bias toward the government suggested management strategy - TAG's FOR EVERYTHING or KEEP LARGER FISH. When you read the questions and their "science behind it" they are simply trying to baffle you with bull**** and get you to pick their chosen management strategy.

Even when you select an alternate option you have 200 characters to try and describe yourself which is difficult when there is not a simple answer. As with every fishery survey I have completed this one will be followed up with an e-mail to actually include my input.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-23-2017, 03:09 PM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tikka300 View Post
Good to see they are asking for public input but horrible survey design. All questions are bias toward the government suggested management strategy - TAG's FOR EVERYTHING or KEEP LARGER FISH. When you read the questions and their "science behind it" they are simply trying to baffle you with bull**** and get you to pick their chosen management strategy.

Even when you select an alternate option you have 200 characters to try and describe yourself which is difficult when there is not a simple answer. As with every fishery survey I have completed this one will be followed up with an e-mail to actually include my input.
Yup and what is the chances they will even bother to read the "other" submissions. Or better yet the chances that enough people say the same thing in other to actually outweigh the number of people that voted for one of the other options?

Some of the questions actually caught me off guard like offering to open up Sylvan Lake walleye. Then other times they give no options like closing pike retention on Buck Lake. I must be in an odd situation because I have never struggled to catch pike at Buck and actually found it one of the easier lakes to catch a keeper at(way easier then Battle for example).

It does get very frustrating when they word the survey as they did for Sylvan pretty much saying if they set the limit to one walleye it won't be sustainable and the fishery will crash... Why hasn't Buck crashed? It sees lots of pressure too and is overrun with walleye. Why because as they have previously told us minimum limits work... So why would opening Sylvan Lake walleye up destroy the fishery? Not hard to realize it wouldn't, and it would barely effect the size too since they are mostly small anyways... Unless when they say open it up to 1,2 or 3 fish they mean with no size limits(which of course would be stupid and would wreck the walleye population).

I like that they are trying to get feedback but I don't like how lots of the questions are worded and I also don't like that the results aren't public(so they could just go and say whatever they wanted anyways). When they posted the result type information about the tags for pike survey saying 60+% of anglers agreed with tags for pike I wasn't sure that I believe that and if true it is quite disappointing which anglers must be bothering to fill out these surveys(maybe not anglers at all???).
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-23-2017, 03:53 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tikka300 View Post
Even when you select an alternate option you have 200 characters to try and describe yourself which is difficult when there is not a simple answer. As with every fishery survey I have completed this one will be followed up with an e-mail to actually include my input.
Sounds good. I did the same.

One of the lakes I was concerned with was Gull. As in why is it not listed in PP2 with the rest? My concern is the ridiculous pike limit of 3 over 63 still in place while places close by like Sylvan will likely be zero retention. Talk about taking a lake that was really good for pike, is now a "meh" of it's recent former self, and pretty much leaving it to be pillaged. Not good in my books and I let them know.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-23-2017, 03:59 PM
NSR Fisher's Avatar
NSR Fisher NSR Fisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 353
Default

I was pretty upset with the way the pigeon holed you into selecting what they want you to select with the Wabamun questions.

I used all 200 characters to give them a piece of my mind though!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-23-2017, 03:59 PM
EZM's Avatar
EZM EZM is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 11,851
Default

Limits, Harvests and other specific strategies must pertain specifically to each watershed. Harvest might be fine in one lake but may destroy another. Trying to apply a "one shoe fits all" approach, like many of the questions on the survey are really irrelevant. These were my comments on the last round of the "general questions" they asked.

I do see the new surveys are more specific - but we have a long way to go to ensure the decisions we are making are viable options for us.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-23-2017, 04:26 PM
The Spank The Spank is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 553
Default

To me if they aren’t going to use good documented science then they might as well just run it all as put and take stocking with a few designated trophy waters.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-23-2017, 05:12 PM
livinstone livinstone is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 176
Default

lam sure these guys are just wondering how far they can go till evenly the public just buys a all the stuff and just go to a water source a reads the regs on what they used to enjoy and lam guessing they wont lost a cent either?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-23-2017, 05:33 PM
Habfan's Avatar
Habfan Habfan is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,721
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Spank View Post
To me if they aren’t going to use good documented science then they might as well just run it all as put and take stocking with a few designated trophy waters.
That is exactly what should be done !! Open every lake for retention of 1 or 2 fish and start stocking regularly. It will take pressure off selected lakes that are open to retention and spread the anglers around more. The $ we put in for angling licenses would more than pay for a hatchery that could produce fish, other than trout.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-23-2017, 07:27 PM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher View Post
Sounds good. I did the same.

One of the lakes I was concerned with was Gull. As in why is it not listed in PP2 with the rest? My concern is the ridiculous pike limit of 3 over 63 still in place while places close by like Sylvan will likely be zero retention. Talk about taking a lake that was really good for pike, is now a "meh" of it's recent former self, and pretty much leaving it to be pillaged. Not good in my books and I let them know.
This is the whole argument I have been making for quite a while now.

Wabamun, Ste. Anne, Pigeon are already 0 limit on Pike. Now adding Buck and Sylvan. Guess where all the meat fishermen are going to be next year? Every year fisheries converges the catch and keep fishing pressure on fewer and fewer lakes. That is not a management strategy that will ever work.

As far as I am concerned they need to try opening everything up to limited retention with protective size restrictions(be it minimum sizes, slots or a combo depending on location). 5-10 years down the road if it is obvious that it isn't working then at that time make everything tags/C&R. Its a last ditch attempt cause what they are currently doing is obviously not working.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-23-2017, 10:08 PM
bobalong bobalong is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
This is the whole argument I have been making for quite a while now.

Wabamun, Ste. Anne, Pigeon are already 0 limit on Pike. Now adding Buck and Sylvan. Guess where all the meat fishermen are going to be next year? Every year fisheries converges the catch and keep fishing pressure on fewer and fewer lakes. That is not a management strategy that will ever work.

As far as I am concerned they need to try opening everything up to limited retention with protective size restrictions(be it minimum sizes, slots or a combo depending on location). 5-10 years down the road if it is obvious that it isn't working then at that time make everything tags/C&R. Its a last ditch attempt cause what they are currently doing is obviously not working.
What you don't realize is that most lakes with a keep limit will have more poaching than lakes with no limit, tags help that a bit. With little to no enforcement in this province as soon as you are allowed to legally have a fish in your possession it opens the door for huge increases in poaching.

You would think anglers would be happy to keep (a) pike or walleye, but poachers are not, and will take many fish, one at a time maybe but more than a limit for sure.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-23-2017, 11:32 PM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobalong View Post
What you don't realize is that most lakes with a keep limit will have more poaching than lakes with no limit, tags help that a bit. With little to no enforcement in this province as soon as you are allowed to legally have a fish in your possession it opens the door for huge increases in poaching.

You would think anglers would be happy to keep (a) pike or walleye, but poachers are not, and will take many fish, one at a time maybe but more than a limit for sure.
So increase enforcement instead of punishing legal anglers...
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-24-2017, 12:27 AM
FishHunterPro FishHunterPro is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,246
Default

I really like their talking about Spencer, I read it and it said all is well with the walleye and it's at low risk , but hey let's try and make changes to something that's not broke . I gave them a piece of my mind for even bring up changes when they clearly say it's doing great. Idiots
__________________
Never celebrate till you got your knife stuck in it !

Some times you catch the Big fish, some times you get stuck in Chip
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-24-2017, 10:17 AM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,440
Default

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
This is the whole argument I have been making for quite a while now.

Wabamun, Ste. Anne, Pigeon are already 0 limit on Pike. Now adding Buck and Sylvan. Guess where all the meat fishermen are going to be next year? Every year fisheries converges the catch and keep fishing pressure on fewer and fewer lakes. That is not a management strategy that will ever work.

As far as I am concerned they need to try opening everything up to limited retention with protective size restrictions(be it minimum sizes, slots or a combo depending on location). 5-10 years down the road if it is obvious that it isn't working then at that time make everything tags/C&R. Its a last ditch attempt cause what they are currently doing is obviously not working.
I wouldn't have saw this is Bobalong had not quoted you.

You missed my point. It was simply don't forget about Gull and please include it in reduced limits to recover. Not some argument to open retention province-wide. As I already stated, that is obviously not going to happen. Write all the letters you want to the powers that be but the argument is dead here.

I hope they do look at Gull as the 3 over 63 cm is too liberal imho. My experience is that it has really changed a lot including over the past 5 years. Hard to find many over 7-8 lbs and even harder to find over 10 lb pike. It could really use a rest from retention.

That said, Gull is one resilient lake with great recruitment. With all the pressure it still continues on. I do believe it is one lake that can recover more quickly than most. I hope they give it some attention.

As well, I’m glad they are considering closing retention on Sylvan. I’m supportive of that. Ole Molly needs protection
That is one lake, like Wabamun, that could really be an excellent quality / trophy pike fishery.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-24-2017, 10:41 AM
aulrich's Avatar
aulrich aulrich is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,111
Default

Part of me thinks a province wide tag system is the way to go, a win card gets a limit of X " eater" size tags and one trophy per year. Fill your tags and your done keeping fish for the year. Open most lakes to some harvest.

For pike I would say an "eater" is 65-80 cm trophy >100

Don't know what it should be for walleye

The reason I like total tags is I know a retired guy back home in Manitoba during the summer he fishes 5 of 7 days a week catches his 2 and eats them for breakfast. He never breaks his possession limit but his impact on the fish stocks is pretty impressive.

Another thing I have started to see is a boat limit so say with pike you can have 5 guys in the boat but the boat can only have 10 pike taken not 15.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-24-2017, 03:19 PM
FishHunterPro FishHunterPro is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aulrich View Post
Part of me thinks a province wide tag system is the way to go, a win card gets a limit of X " eater" size tags and one trophy per year. Fill your tags and your done keeping fish for the year. Open most lakes to some harvest.

For pike I would say an "eater" is 65-80 cm trophy >100

Don't know what it should be for walleye

The reason I like total tags is I know a retired guy back home in Manitoba during the summer he fishes 5 of 7 days a week catches his 2 and eats them for breakfast. He never breaks his possession limit but his impact on the fish stocks is pretty impressive.

Another thing I have started to see is a boat limit so say with pike you can have 5 guys in the boat but the boat can only have 10 pike taken not 15.
Thats a terrible idea, the system is ok as is but it can use some tweaking , I live up north where the population is far less than around the big cities,you can go out and not see any other people most times with a 1 walleye over 50cm limit. Or you have remote fly in lakes that don't see the pressure like all the lakes further south. We all pay for a sport fishing license every year there is no good reason why we all have to pay an extra $10 and draw fees for walleye tags. One lake I mention earlier in the post they mention the lake is doing great for walleye but they're try to dip they're hands deeper in are pockets by suggesting maybe doing a draw system or cut back and make it a one fish lake. Who in their right minds would vote for a draw system on a lake that's clearly showing the management in place is actually working fine.
__________________
Never celebrate till you got your knife stuck in it !

Some times you catch the Big fish, some times you get stuck in Chip
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-24-2017, 03:41 PM
FishHunterPro FishHunterPro is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,246
Default

Have a read on page 54 on spencer. They say everything is great with the walleye fishery but they just want to try and see if we want to change it , going as far as suggesting walleye draws . Their getting greedy and want extra $$ . Now I only filled out lakes that I'm familiar with and fish but this caught my attention pretty quick. Is there any other lakes on the survey that you folks noticed that they're try to take this approach ?

https://talkaep.alberta.ca/3948/documents/8343/download
__________________
Never celebrate till you got your knife stuck in it !

Some times you catch the Big fish, some times you get stuck in Chip
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-24-2017, 05:02 PM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

Of course they want to change Spencer. Can't go having quality slot limit lakes that prove the system works as good as their stupid tag system...
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-27-2017, 10:03 AM
Tikka300's Avatar
Tikka300 Tikka300 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Grande Prairie
Posts: 188
Default

Yes spencer was one of my biggest issues with the system. Here you have a lake that produces walleye and pike at good numbers and you can actually catch walleye within the slot limit - WOW who would have thought that is possible! We also catch many that exceed the slot size and they go back to PRODUCE MORE SLOT SIZED FISH!!!

Here you have a lake already with restricted access, which drives the fishable days way down, and you want to put even more restrictions???
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 02:27 AM.


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