Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fishing Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 10-19-2017, 12:48 PM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by npauls View Post
What you fail to realize is that if a lake/reservoir goes to a zero keep or tag system then walleye tournaments are no longer able to receive permits to have an event on that body of water. So closing a lake doesn't help tournament anglers at all.

Our province has the highest anglers per water capita in all of Canada and right up there for all of north America. A simple slot system just won't work like it does in other provinces and states. The retention rate is too high.

I agree that we need test netting done more often and for f&w to be proactive instead of reactive when it comes to the up and down fazes of our fisheries.

A good example of miss management is Chin reservoir in the south. There is major talks of shutting it down because of test net results from 8 YEARS AGO! That is how long it roughly takes a walleye to reach maturity. So there is a whole new crop of fish in that lake and 8 full spawning seasons since the last results but because those results from 8 years ago were bad they want to shut it down. A lot of the anglers in southern Alberta have known about this plan to shut down all the reservoirs in the south on a 5 year rotation.

If you ask around the south. Chin is one of the best if not the best year class fishery around. You can catch pretty much every year class pretty much every day out there. There are tons of reservoirs in way worse shape than chin but it is the next one up on the hit list that they have for an agenda.
First of all the old anglers per waterbody argument is severely overplayed on this forum and is next to meaningless. If you want to actually compare provinces in this manner you need to look at the primary people holding areas(say 3 hrs surrounding every city), data for which I do not believe is available. If you did this the angler/waterbody or area of water would skyrocket in most other provinces because most of their waterbodies are inaccessible or rarely accessed by their primary fishing populations.

Alberta on the other hand only has a handful of very remote waterbodies that don't see regular pressure and outside of the few major lakes close to Edmonton/Red Deer/Calgary our fishing pressure is spread out pretty effectively.

If you have ever fished any of these other provinces you will know that there are many lakes/rivers in some of these other provinces that see just as much if not more pressure then our AB waterbodies see. I know I have seen it in both SK and BC as well as many times in fishing shows etc for ON.


Back to the walleye topic.


Your comments regarding Chin are a great example of why the tag system is not the solution here in AB. The only way to properly micromanage a lake by controlling tag numbers requires in depth population estimates every couple years at least. Netting is the main way they get this information but that is not a good means especially on a year to year or every other year basis as their is significant mortality associated with that netting.

The only way the tag system is effective with lack of perfect micromanaging is if it is used like it currently is on Pigeon and Ste. Anne where the lakes are overpopulated and the tag numbers are set low to ensure there are not too many fish removed. That has other negative effects though because it screws up the lakes ecosystem and decimates other fish species populations as is completely obvious on those lakes both of which used to have populations of pike, perch and whitefish all of which are now lacking and not really recovering even though the limits have been closed for some time now(for pike anyways)...

I am vehemently against a province wide tag system because I know it won't be managed properly and all it is going to do is ruin these waterbodies. If they want to use it on the lakes close to city that do see signifcant pressure like Pigeon etc do then I am ok with that but implementing these on every lake across the province and them now wanting to do so for pike as well is utterly ridiculous and is going to do far more harm then good.

Alternatives to the tag system are minimum size limits which have proven effective(and which for the record AEP also says are effective minus the stunted average size) and slot limits which have all the advantages of a minimum size limit plus give a population of larger fish as well.

AEP really likes to focus on walleye, grayling and bull trout but they keep doing so at the expense of other species and it is time that they step back and realize what they are doing and start making some better decisions regarding the big picture of fish populations and angling in Alberta.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 10-19-2017, 12:50 PM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

Also we don't need walleye to recover in every single lake especially ones that will never be able to sustain a fishery due to poor walleye reproduction etc.

Leave those lakes to be the pike and perch lakes instead of just having them full of stunted walleye that you can't and won't ever be able to keep anyways...
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 10-19-2017, 12:53 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

I totally agree with you Rav.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 10-19-2017, 01:04 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
First of all the old anglers per waterbody argument is severely overplayed on this forum and is next to meaningless. If you want to actually compare provinces in this manner you need to look at the primary people holding areas(say 3 hrs surrounding every city), data for which I do not believe is available. If you did this the angler/waterbody or area of water would skyrocket in most other provinces because most of their waterbodies are inaccessible or rarely accessed by their primary fishing populations.

Alberta on the other hand only has a handful of very remote waterbodies that don't see regular pressure and outside of the few major lakes close to Edmonton/Red Deer/Calgary our fishing pressure is spread out pretty effectively.

If you have ever fished any of these other provinces you will know that there are many lakes/rivers in some of these other provinces that see just as much if not more pressure then our AB waterbodies see. I know I have seen it in both SK and BC as well as many times in fishing shows etc for ON.


Back to the walleye topic.


Your comments regarding Chin are a great example of why the tag system is not the solution here in AB. The only way to properly micromanage a lake by controlling tag numbers requires in depth population estimates every couple years at least. Netting is the main way they get this information but that is not a good means especially on a year to year or every other year basis as their is significant mortality associated with that netting.

The only way the tag system is effective with lack of perfect micromanaging is if it is used like it currently is on Pigeon and Ste. Anne where the lakes are overpopulated and the tag numbers are set low to ensure there are not too many fish removed. That has other negative effects though because it screws up the lakes ecosystem and decimates other fish species populations as is completely obvious on those lakes both of which used to have populations of pike, perch and whitefish all of which are now lacking and not really recovering even though the limits have been closed for some time now(for pike anyways)...

I am vehemently against a province wide tag system because I know it won't be managed properly and all it is going to do is ruin these waterbodies. If they want to use it on the lakes close to city that do see signifcant pressure like Pigeon etc do then I am ok with that but implementing these on every lake across the province and them now wanting to do so for pike as well is utterly ridiculous and is going to do far more harm then good.

Alternatives to the tag system are minimum size limits which have proven effective(and which for the record AEP also says are effective minus the stunted average size) and slot limits which have all the advantages of a minimum size limit plus give a population of larger fish as well.

AEP really likes to focus on walleye, grayling and bull trout but they keep doing so at the expense of other species and it is time that they step back and realize what they are doing and start making some better decisions regarding the big picture of fish populations and angling in Alberta.
Would more funding help, would it be a big part of the solution?
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 10-19-2017, 01:23 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
Would more funding help, would it be a big part of the solution?
Is that your only solution? More funding? What exactly would not benefit from more funding? I can't think of anything that wouldn't, but pretend there isn't going to be more funding, what do you think would help our current situation? Do you have like a real suggestion other than more money?
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 10-19-2017, 01:35 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
Is that your only solution? More funding? What exactly would not benefit from more funding? I can't think of anything that wouldn't, but pretend there isn't going to be more funding, what do you think would help our current situation? Do you have like a real suggestion other than more money?
Just asking a question.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 10-19-2017, 01:50 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
Just asking a question.
It was a good question.....

What do you think they should do with that extra money?
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 10-19-2017, 02:01 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
It was a good question.....

What do you think they should do with that extra money?
I was asking Rav, but you are free to answer if you like.

Guess maybe Im the only one that thinks more money and testing would be a good thing. Thought maybe Rav might have some thoughts on that.

Actually agree with some of what Rav said, but not all.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.

Last edited by huntsfurfish; 10-19-2017 at 02:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 10-19-2017, 02:16 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
I was asking Rav, but you are free to answer if you like.

Guess maybe Im the only one that thinks more money and testing would be a good thing. Thought maybe Rav might have some thoughts on that.

Actually agree with some of what Rav said, but not all.
My 5yr old could tell you more money and testing is never a bad thing, I'm trying to see if you have a specific idea that might be better than what they're doing right now in the meantime?

You keep saying you know what the solution is, but I have yet to hear about it. I was just hoping you weren't just blowing hot air?

If you don't really know of any ideas, I guess more money is the master plan.

I like Bobalongs take on the situation, but more money means nothing unless it lands in the right place for programs such as the one he mentioned.

More money...... huh.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 10-19-2017, 02:30 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
My 5yr old could tell you more money and testing is never a bad thing, I'm trying to see if you have a specific idea that might be better than what they're doing right now in the meantime?

You keep saying you know what the solution is, but I have yet to hear about it. I was just hoping you weren't just blowing hot air?

If you don't really know of any ideas, I guess more money is the master plan.

I like Bobalongs take on the situation, but more money means nothing unless it lands in the right place for programs such as the one he mentioned.

More money...... huh.
Good gravy here we go again. They need more money for the testing.
They need money for stocking if you want to go that route among other things. You cant "manage" without testing. Smart kid have him explain it to you.
Was kind of hoping Rav would agree that more funding was needed for testing and such than maybe you would see why.
And stop answering questions with questions. lol
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.

Last edited by huntsfurfish; 10-19-2017 at 02:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 10-19-2017, 02:34 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
Good gravy here we go again. They need more money for the testing.
They need money for stocking if you want to go that route among other things. You cant "manage" without testing. Smart kid have him explain it to you.

And stop answering questions with questions. lol

Answer what question? Will money help? It was such a stupid question I honestly thought you were joking???


So in the meantime, since they aren't getting any money (I should have my kid explain that to you) what's the plan?

Let me guess, you want to keep it a secret?


It's easy to sit on the fence and throw stones, but at least have a plan when you run out of stones.

Last edited by Kurt505; 10-19-2017 at 02:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 10-19-2017, 02:52 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
So in the meantime, since they aren't getting any money (I should have my kid explain that to you) what's the plan?

Let me guess, you want to keep it a secret?
DO you even know why you want a slot limit?

Slot limits were originally used to allow the removal of eating size fish. Which are usually far from spawning age. Is that what you want? If so that would be a mistake.

Slot limits above the spawning age is just the lower limit where it currently is with a maximum size to protect a larger size. This would be an appropriate selection for quality fisheries. However, the comment by Rav about stunting is unlikely to be the case because of keeping of fish and more likely the result of few fish making it much over that limit before being removed. If you are looking to keep fish than the slot will restrict your ability to keep, even more than current regs.

More testing is needed to make better judgement/decisions. How do you determine limits? Or slot sizes? Slots to be safe without much monitoring If you dont get it(monitoring) than what we have is best and should not stray to far.

Knowing what you want and why is important.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.

Last edited by huntsfurfish; 10-19-2017 at 03:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 10-19-2017, 03:01 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is online now
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,440
Default

I think, used loosely, that going forwards it will depend on the management framework. I added an excerpt from the framework to this.

I do believe that more $$$ directed to testing, and more often and then stocking based on these results would be ideal. Starting with the species and areas at highest risk.

It is hard to have faith in government spending but I'm hopeful that something like this could come to fruition. The next few months might be interesting...hopefully not disappointing.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 10-19-2017 2-55-07 PM.jpg (38.9 KB, 10 views)
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 10-19-2017, 03:13 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
DO you even know why you want a slot limit?

Slot limits were originally used to allow the removal of eating size fish. Which are usually far from spawning age. Is that what you want? If so that would be a mistake.


In lakes such as pigeon, wabamun, and Lac ste anne, why would that be a mistake? The walleye population is way above where it should be in these lakes, just to name a few. The more lakes that get opened up, the less angling pressure an individual lake will have to endure. Opening up just one or two lakes would be a mistake.

Slot limits above the spawning age is just the lower limit where it currently is with a maximum size to protect a larger size. This would be an appropriate selection for quality fisheries. However, the comment by Rav about stunting is unlikely to be the case because of keeping of fish and more likely the result of few fish making it much over that limit before being removed. If you are looking to keep fish than the slot will restrict you catch even more.

What about south buck? How many walleye grow to 50cm+ in that lake? Thinning out the herd will leave more food and room for fish to grow.

More testing is needed to make better judgement/decisions. How do you determine limits? Slots to be safe without much monitoring If you dont get it(monitoring) than what we have is best and should not stray to far.

Knowing what you want and why is important.
I would like to see a 1 fish limit on a large scale across Alberta to 1) Help bring the walleye/pike/perch ratios back to a more natural level, 2) Spread the angling pressure across several lakes instead of just a chosen few.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 10-19-2017, 03:14 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is online now
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
Slot limits were originally used to allow the removal of eating size fish. Which are usually far from spawning age. Is that what you want? If so that would be a mistake.

Slot limits above the spawning age is just the lower limit where it currently is with a maximum size to protect a larger size. This would be an appropriate selection for quality fisheries. However, the comment by Rav about stunting is unlikely to be the case because of keeping of fish and more likely the result of few fish making it much over that limit before being removed. If you are looking to keep fish than the slot will restrict your ability to keep even more than current regs.
Good post on slot limits!

One of the things mentioned in the new framework is the objective to achieve at least 3 spawning events before a fish can be harvested. And now they are looking at changing that up depending on how a body of water is classified.

I don't see anywhere that slots are playing a part of that...yet. It is only draft after all. Maybe under Experimental or Study Based. Maybe...
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 10-19-2017, 03:18 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is online now
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
I would like to see a 1 fish limit on a large scale across Alberta to 1) Help bring the walleye/pike/perch ratios back to a more natural level, 2) Spread the angling pressure across several lakes instead of just a chosen few.
In the context of walleye only for the 1 fish limit, I'm assuming?
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 10-19-2017, 03:22 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher View Post
In the context of walleye only for the 1 fish limit, I'm assuming?
Yes.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 10-19-2017, 03:27 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is online now
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
Yes.
Specific lakes or all?
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 10-19-2017, 03:30 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher View Post
Specific lakes or all?
The more the better to spread angling pressure. Any lakes in danger i.e. With low walleye numbers can go with tags, others with high numbers of walleye open to 1 slot sized fish.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 10-19-2017, 03:51 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is online now
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
The more the better to spread angling pressure. Any lakes in danger i.e. With low walleye numbers can go with tags, others with high numbers of walleye open to 1 slot sized fish.
Seems reasonable since it is selective. I would certainly see that agreeable to try for a year with planned test netting to monitor along the way.

It seems that is somewhat their newer plan...to be vetted of course...but might take them a lot longer to implement than anglers may like.

I knew we agreed
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 10-19-2017, 03:52 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
I would like to see a 1 fish limit on a large scale across Alberta to 1) Help bring the walleye/pike/perch ratios back to a more natural level, 2) Spread the angling pressure across several lakes instead of just a chosen few.
I would like to see world peace. Sorry couldnt resist.

Would be nice to keep 10 fish a day any species.

K kidding aside.

But it really would be nice to see what you posted but extremely unlikely because the water closest to the cities get fished out first then repeat with the next and so on......

Nothing wrong with aiming for the moon though.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.

Last edited by huntsfurfish; 10-19-2017 at 04:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 10-19-2017, 03:59 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is online now
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,440
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
I would like to see world peace. Sorry couldnt resist.

Would be nice to keep 10 fish a day any species.

But it really would be nice to see what you posted but extremely unlikely because the water closest to the cities get fished out first then repeat with the next......

Nothing wrong with aiming for the moon though.
Understood, but if it was more selective. For example Pigeon was still tags due to the close population pressure, I could be a good thing for the lakes currently left out under the general no limit retention.

Whether or not that is achievable ...I understand when you say the moon. I guess I'm the eternal optimist that thinks if we can band together we can make change happen. [Was that Dave Jenson pointing and at me and saying "good luck!...but have at it]
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 10-19-2017, 04:14 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher View Post
Understood, but if it was more selective. For example Pigeon was still tags due to the close population pressure, I could be a good thing for the lakes currently left out under the general no limit retention.

Whether or not that is achievable ...I understand when you say the moon. I guess I'm the eternal optimist that thinks if we can band together we can make change happen. [Was that Dave Jenson pointing and at me and saying "good luck!...but have at it]
Yup, we cant even agree on here. But there is always hope.

I have a little more faith in our bios and fish guys and gals. I believe things are improving just not fast enough for some. And yes some mistakes were made.
Balance will not be achieved overnight. But I also do not wish to see the government pressured into bad ideas either. There is a lot to it. Not a simple fix like putting 1 fish limit or a slot on everything.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 10-19-2017, 04:18 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is online now
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,440
Default

Thanks, well said.

Yeah, agree on the speed of things. It should be interesting on the new framework over the next few months. I'm sure that will lead to more "discussions" and hopefully constructive ones
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 10-19-2017, 04:24 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher View Post
Thanks, well said.

Yeah, agree on the speed of things. It should be interesting on the new framework over the next few months. I'm sure that will lead to more "discussions" and hopefully constructive ones
Many will probably not be happy with it.

I feel fortunate to fish in this Province, fished it for at least 55 years. Some of the best fishing i have had is in the last 10-20.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 10-19-2017, 04:43 PM
pikergolf's Avatar
pikergolf pikergolf is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11,287
Default

I like the tag system as they can control pretty much exactly what comes out. Having said that, Alberta needs to get a lot more liberal on tag numbers on some of these lakes and bring them into some semblance of balance.
__________________
“One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain.”

Thomas Sowell
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 10-19-2017, 07:00 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 pikergolf View Post
I like the tag system as they can control pretty much exactly what comes out. Having said that, Alberta needs to get a lot more liberal on tag numbers on some of these lakes and bring them into some semblance of balance.
This...^
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 10-19-2017, 09:15 PM
Brandonkop's Avatar
Brandonkop Brandonkop is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: BC/Alberta
Posts: 2,026
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
Also we don't need walleye to recover in every single lake especially ones that will never be able to sustain a fishery due to poor walleye reproduction etc.

Leave those lakes to be the pike and perch lakes instead of just having them full of stunted walleye that you can't and won't ever be able to keep anyways...
I agree with Ravyak. Great points!

I disagree that more funding would help. Funding changes nothing if there is no change in the underlying ideology of population management.

In other words, you can pile all the money you want on a dead horse... it's never going to win another race.

To all interested parties here, If you have not yet read Alberta's Fish Conservation and Management Strategy then you won't understand what needs to be changed.

http://issuu.com/esrd/docs/fish_cons...110136/8768768

They are not currently following their guiding principles.
__________________

The Fishing Doctors Adventures - You May Watch More Than You Bargained For, haha!
https://www.youtube.com/TheFishingDoctorsAdventures
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 10-19-2017, 09:22 PM
pikeman06 pikeman06 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,615
Default

Tag system leads to way more abuse of the resource. I've heard guys bragging about catching a hundred wallies on a tag. "No game warden around don't seal the tag." "Just put your wallies on the seat beside you, if you don't get pulled over don't seal the tag" etc etc. It's like everything anymore. There's always someone grossly abusing the system. Don't kid yourselves.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 10-19-2017, 09:36 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikeman06 View Post
Tag system leads to way more abuse of the resource. I've heard guys bragging about catching a hundred wallies on a tag. "No game warden around don't seal the tag." "Just put your wallies on the seat beside you, if you don't get pulled over don't seal the tag" etc etc. It's like everything anymore. There's always someone grossly abusing the system. Don't kid yourselves.
So open it up so people dont have to do that.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.
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 06:00 AM.


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