walleye draw

Ya but where was the public consultation? A round table is a long ways from a true process of public consultation. Anyhow, the fact remains that anglers weren't willing to pay $13.25 for a half pound of walleye and I think that should have been obvious from the begining. I know I saw it. Thankfully it's all in the past now and the process seems to be improving. Once again, I'm not criticising the science or the management behind it but you'll never convince me that F&W is in touch when they hatched this ill-conceived plan from the beginning and, since that's not really their job, I guess it should come as no surprise but I'm guessing some public consultation would have eliviated a lot of problems.

I guess we can sit and argue all we want here but the fact remains that the 2006 plan was a disaster and many of us foresaw it...that should say something!

[Waxy]

Sheephunter,

Perhaps I missed it, but what are your major criticisms of the current system and what suggestions do you have to improve the system?

I see it as a pretty darn ingenious idea. I didn't see it promoted as a new angling opportunity, only as an opportunity to harvest fish on previously catch and release only waters. They've come up with a system that responded to the angler's request for some form of selective harvest opportunity.

I don't think there's really any questioning the fact that it's a very effective way of controlling the fish harvest. Nothing would be as effective as stepping up enforcement to prevent all the illegal harvest that goes on, and enforce the tag system itself, but as a management plan, it makes sense to me. I just can't see allowing a "limit" of fish on AB's lakes like in SK or MB, there's simply too much fishing pressure, and the resource is too good right now to risk damaging it.

As far as the cost of the tags, if you don't want to pay for it, don't. You can't compare it to the cost per pound of buying fillets in the supermarket. If filling the freezer is the only reason you're out fishing, then perhaps you'd be better off just buying the fillets anyway, as you're kinda missing the whole point. I view it as the cost of the experience - like paying to go out to a good restaurant for a steak rather than throwing one on the BBQ at home. Very little in the outdoor world is cheap, and quite frankly, I think the cost of the tags is pretty minor in return for the experience of a fresh shore lunch. I also know that the money goes to outdoor friendly businesses and the management of the fishery, both of which I gladly support.

Waxy

Actuaully you are kind of missing the point waxxy...the idea is to harvest fish to help meet management goals and the government has made it too expensive for the average angler to want to buy in. They are not doing us some big favour here, they need anglers to take fish out of these lakes and I wholeheartedly agree that a draw or some other limited tag system is the way to do it but you need angler buy in for it to work.

I don't know why I need to keep saying this but I'll say it again because obviously you missed it as well...I totally believe their science and their management objectives and have said that since day one but I also told them since day one that charging $13.25 per fish was never going to fly and it didn't. 2007 was a big improvement with the issuing of more tags. They also need to make it easier for anglers to buy tags. I understand there are some issues with ISM and that's why the draw process closes so quickly but fix it or devise another method for getting these tags into the hands of anglers. It ain't rocket science.

I find it funny on this site how when you try to disagree with a small portion of a greater idea that you are instantly branded as being against the entire idea...well I'm not but that also doesn't mean it couldn't have been done better and to that end, the govrernment missed the mark. This ain't a a case of fer it or agin it...it's a case of constructive criticism to help with a system that obviously isn't working.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Actuaully you are kind of missing the point waxxy...the idea is to harvest fish to help meet management goals and the government has made it too expensive for the average angler to want to buy in. They are not doing us some big favour here, they need anglers to take fish out of these lakes and I wholeheartedly agree that a draw or some other limited tag system is the way to do it but you need angler buy in for it to work.

I guess I did completely miss the point. I wasn't aware that the harvest of fish was desired by the F&W people as part of managing the resource. My impression was that catch and release was/is the best option in terms of managing the resource - and that the draw system was a compromise to allow anglers some limited harvest of the resource.

I'll have to look into it a little further, it seems counterintuitive to me decreasing the number of fish would improve the fishery. On top of that, you'd think nature, in combination with delayed mortality, would more than take care of that problem on its own. Do you have any links or info regarding the studies and the need to take fish out of the lakes? I'd appreciate them for my own info.

I don't know why I need to keep saying this but I'll say it again because obviously you missed it as well...I totally believe their science and their management objectives and have said that since day one but I also told them since day one that charging $13.25 per fish was never going to fly and it didn't. 2007 was a big improvement with the issuing of more tags. They also need to make it easier for anglers to buy tags. I understand there are some issues with ISM and that's why the draw process closes so quickly but fix it or devise another method for getting these tags into the hands of anglers. It ain't rocket science.

In my opinion, it's more a lack of info and availability than overpriced tags. I don't think they did a very good job of getting the message out to the casual angler. I agree that a simple over counter system of some kind on undersubcribed tags would help increase the number of tags being purchased.

$13.25/fish is pretty steep, but all things considered, it's not completely unreasonable to my mind. However, I agree with you that lowering the price would increase buy-in, and I'm sure they'll look at that in the future. To my mind though, the program should be self sustaining financially.

I find it funny on this site how when you try to disagree with a small portion of a greater idea that you are instantly branded as being against the entire idea...well I'm not but that also doesn't mean it couldn't have been done better and to that end, the govrernment missed the mark. This ain't a a case of fer it or agin it...it's a case of constructive criticism to help with a system that obviously isn't working.

There's no need to be so defensive and short sheephunter, I was merely asking questions of someone who obviously has knowledge and an interest in the subject. I'm not attacking you or branding you in any way, you're reading far too much into this and making it personal when it isn't. Relax.

Waxy

I guess I did completely miss the point. I wasn't aware that the harvest of fish was desired by the F&W people as part of managing the resource. My impression was that catch and release was/is the best option in terms of managing the resource - and that the draw system was a compromise to allow anglers some limited harvest of the resource.

I'll have to look into it a little further, it seems counterintuitive to me decreasing the number of fish would improve the fishery. On top of that, you'd think nature, in combination with delayed mortality, would more than take care of that problem on its own. Do you have any links or info regarding the studies and the need to take fish out of the lakes? I'd appreciate them for my own info.

Talk to Trevor Rhodes of SRD...he'll be able to fill you in on all the details.

Sometimes harvest is a beneficial thing....just as it is with hunting.

[sirmike68]

If they want to meet their management objectives and succeed in filling their quotas they could increase limits. How ever many anglers bought tags for each lake involved they could take "X" amount of anglers and divide up the quota and increase or decrease the limits to meet their goals. When I was fishing Pigeon this year I kept my 3 limit but caught hundreds. I would have had no problem keeping 10 -15 if thats what it took to fill their quota to help manage the lake. I know that will probably never happen because that would be giving too much for to little money, but if the money is not what they are after it shouldn't be a problem.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Talk to Trevor Rhodes of SRD...he'll be able to fill you in on all the details.

Ummmm, OK. Maybe I'll bump into him sometime.

Sometimes harvest is a beneficial thing....just as it is with hunting.

I understand that. I guess I just didn't realize AB walleye populations were at that point, or could be considered in the same manner as big game. I wasn't aware that the factors that require big game to be so carefully managed, a lack of natural predators and habitat, applied in the same manner to fish populations.

Thanks Sheephunter.

Waxy

While your tone is not lost on me, I'll try to explain....certainly lakes like Pigeon are indeed a classic example of a lake in need of a controled harvest. Walleye, unlike big game animals are the predator so your attempt at sarcasm is a bit misplaced. When predators begin to run out of prey, there are two options......let nature take its course or manage the fishery and remove some of the predators. Pigeon is indeed running low on prey and the drastic reducton in average size over the past five or six is a great indication just how low the populations of larger prey species are.

While certainly not the fault of the biologists, as they were acting with the best info they had, but Pigeon is a classic case of over management. Walleye populations got artificially high for a number of reason, reducing prey and reducing the number of trophy fish that this lake was known for. So yes, a harvest is beneficial sometimes.

I detected the sarcasm in your voice too when I suggested that you talk to Trevor but it would time well spent. The guy knows his stuff!

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

While your tone is not lost on me, I'll try to explain....certainly lakes like Pigeon are indeed a classic example of a lake in need of a controled harvest. Walleye, unlike big game animals are the predator so your attempt at sarcasm is a bit misplaced. When predators begin to run out of prey, there are two options......let nature take its course or manage the fishery and remove some of the predators. Pigeon is indeed running low on prey and the drastic reducton in average size over the past five or six is a great indication just how low the populations of larger prey species are.

While certainly not the fault of the biologists, as they were acting with the best info they had, but Pigeon is a classic case of over management. Walleye populations got artificially high for a number of reason, reducing prey and reducing the number of trophy fish that this lake was known for. So yes, a harvest is beneficial sometimes.

I detected the sarcasm in your voice too when I suggested that you talk to Trevor but it would time well spent. The guy knows his stuff!

The Trevor comment was sarcastic. Simply responding "Talk to Trevor" doesn't get me, or anyone else reading this with interest, anywhere. [sarcasm]What am I gonna do? Look the guy up in the phone book and cold call him to talk about fisheries biology? [/sarcasm] I was hoping you had some reference info I could check out.

As for the rest of my post, no sarcasm was intended whatsoever. As a personal comment - it's hard to convey emotion or tone through the written word, you shouldn't have such a thin skin and don't take things so personally. I think it's pretty clear from my few posts here that I don't intend offense to anyone, I've been polite, civil and respectful. If you don't feel that's the case or choose not to respond in kind, that's fine by me, we simply won't interact on the forums in the future. Life's too short.

Now, to the content of the post.

I was truly unaware of the situation with the walleye population in AB, I'm a SK boy, and the only AB lake I've fished is Crawling Valley.

Walleye, to the best of my knowledge, are both predator and prey throughout the majority of their life span. It's been my understanding that the populations of fish species are largely self regulating due to this and variations in success of each individual year class. I was not aware that they can become "overpopulated". I've never heard that term used before with regard to any fish species. The comparison to big game was based on that understanding of predation/survival rates and the fact that fish habitat is generally very stable.

If I understand your last post correctly, walleye populations are up, but average size is down. I assume that this is due to the increase competition for prey outstripping the increased number of fish being produced in the lake. I'm guessing that if as you say, the greater numbers lead to smaller fish, that's where the slot limit comes from in SK, MB, and ON. I can see how eliminating competition at a certain level would skew population sizes to either end of the spectrum.

I guess the question then becomes do you manage the fishery to produce fewer but larger fish, or do you manage it to maximize the population? I'm not sure on the answer to that. Personally, I'd rather catch 50 fish in a day than 5 big ones. I fish regularly on Last Mountain in Sask, and trophy fish (my personal best is 11 lbs, but I've seen several 14 lb'ers) are abundant, but in general, the fishing is terrible. It's pretty hard to beat those days on a fly-in trip or the odd magical day on the lakes down here when you can catch fish to heart's content all day long.

Waxy

The Trevor comment was sarcastic. Simply responding "Talk to Trevor" doesn't get me, or anyone else reading this with interest, anywhere. [sarcasm]What am I gonna do? Look the guy up in the phone book and cold call him to talk about fisheries biology? [/sarcasm] I was hoping you had some reference info I could check out.

Yes, a cold call to Trevor is exactly what I was suggesting. Finding his number is as simple as going to the government web site. Sorry, I don't know of any info on the web, I prefer the horse's mouth and truthfully what's going on at Pigeon is a complex issue worthy of a much more detailed explaination than a visit to a web site.

The high population of walleye in Pigeon is a recent thing and likely a temporary one if populations are not decreased. Anyhow, Trevor could explain this far better than I and if you are truly interested in learning more about the rational behind the draws, I highly reccommend speaking to one of the province's biologists. They are a wealth of info. I'm no expert on fish biology and have faith in their management techniques and far be it for me to try and paraphrase this complex issue.

How they ran the actual draw...now that's another matter....I've got lots of opinion on that.

I've fished Last Mountain many times and for me personally...I'll take those five big fish any day. Alberta is full of lakes where catching 50 or 100 walleye a day is a breeze but catching one 10 pounder...now that's a rare occurance indeed. Pigeon used to be the one exception.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Yes, a cold call to Trevor is exactly what I was suggesting. Finding his number is as simple as going to the government web site. Sorry, I don't know of any info on the web, I prefer the horse's mouth and truthfully what's going on at Pigeon is a complex issue worthy of a much more detailed explaination than a visit to a web site.

I'm not sure that's my style, but I'll keep it in mind, and I'll definitely remember the name. I would like to learn more about walleyes in general, knowledge is power.

The high population of walleye in Pigeon is a recent thing and likely a temporary one if populations are not decreased. Anyhow, Trevor could explain this far better than I and if you are truly interested in learning more about the rational behind the draws, I highly reccommend speaking to one of the province's biologists. They are a wealth of info. I'm no expert on fish biology and have faith in their management techniques and far be it for me to try and paraphrase this complex issue.

I suspect the populations are somewhat cyclical.

I'd like to get that opportunity. Perhaps at one of the upcoming outdoors shows...

I've fished Last Mountain many times and for me personally...I'll take those five big fish any day. Alberta is full of lakes where catching 50 or 100 walleye a day is a breeze but catching one 10 pounder...now that's a rare occurance indeed. Pigeon used to be the one exception.

I agree that when the fishing is hot there - those magical two weeks in early June and in the late fall - it's REALLY hard to beat, but I've spent WAAAYYY too many days on "The Mountain" with nothing to show for it but a sunburn and sea legs from riding the 4' waves all day. By the same token, after day 4 or 5 of catching 1-2 lb fish on a fly in trip, I'm ready for something else. I guess in a perfect world, there'd be 100 fish a day, with every 10th one or so being a trophy.

Waxy

[wind drift]

[QUOTE=sheephunter;77075]Ya but where was the public consultation? A round table is a long ways from a true process of public consultation.

Sheep, you and I both know that wasn't the sum total of consultation done. You asked a question and I answered it. The point made was that F&W acted on the requests made by stakeholders at the Round Table. Your criticism shouldn't focus strictly on F&W.

[QUOTE=wind drift;77344]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Ya but where was the public consultation? A round table is a long ways from a true process of public consultation.

Sheep, you and I both know that wasn't the sum total of consultation done. You asked a question and I answered it. The point made was that F&W acted on the requests made by stakeholders at the Round Table. Your criticism shouldn't focus strictly on F&W.

Actually I don't know that...that's why I asked.

Why shouldn't it focus stricty on F&W...they were the ones that decided anglers would pay $13.25 a fish when many told them they were out to lunch. Who was right?

I'm sure this was discussed at the round table as far as there being a draw for walleye but were the details ever discussed...like that it would cost $13.25 a fish? I sure saw nothing about that. Seniors were faced with an extra cost as well as they also had to buy a WIN Card. Just saying it could have been done way better from the getgo.

I suspect the populations are somewhat cyclical.

Not really...way more complicated than a simple answer like that...

As for The Mountain.....I love fishing any time there. I've had some of the most incredible suspended bites with 29x50 in July and August that you could imagine. You never saw a fish under 5 pounds. Summer walleye aren't easy but they are hungry. I'd say 90% of the fishing in the lake is untapped. The fish are there but it's just most anglers can't key in on them other than a couple times of the year.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Not really...way more complicated than a simple answer like that...

I'm sure it is.

As for The Mountain.....I love fishing any time there. I've had some of the most incredible suspended bites with 29x50 in July and August that you could imagine. You never saw a fish under 5 pounds. Summer walleye aren't easy but they are hungry. I'd say 90% of the fishing in the lake is untapped. The fish are there but it's just most anglers can't key in on them other than a couple times of the year.

I agree. I'm still learning to fish the Mountain. There are miles and miles of it I've never driven over with the sonar or cast a line into. It's a challenging lake, but I think that's a big part of the attraction too. On top of that, I finally got myself a boat this year that's going to let me do the fishing I've always wanted to.

I'm not a big troller, I much prefer to jig or Lindy, so I'm really going to try and force myself to learn the crankbait and trolling techniques that they use on the big water in MN and the Great Lakes. I think there's a method there that can be applied to the Mountain, especially for summer fishing.

We'll have to get in touch if you're planning a trip out there this year.

Waxy

I'm not a big troller, I much prefer to jig or Lindy, so I'm really going to try and force myself to learn the crankbait and trolling techniques that they use on the big water in MN and the Great Lakes. I think there's a method there that can be applied to the Mountain, especially for summer fishing.

Not only MN and Great Lakes but Sask as well. Trolling for suspended walleye in Last Mountain is hands down the most productive technique there is during the summer. Spend a day on the water with a guy like Rob Schulz from Rowan's and you'll be shocked what you've been missing.

We've also had some great days in the fall using jigging spoons....

[Waxy]

We've been experimenting with jigging spoons and buzz bombs as well, some days they seem to work really well, other days not at all.

Is Rob the guy at G&S Marina?

Maybe we should start a new thread on fishing the Mountain, I'm always looking for new info and ideas...especially about trolling.

Waxy

Is Rob the guy and G&S Marina?

Yes he is.

[wind drift]

Hi Sheep,
I must not be doing a very good job of getting my point across, but I'll try again.

You asked "when and where did this take place?". To which I replied, "January 2006 Minister's Round Table". You then responded with "Ya, but where was the public consultation"?, which I thought was a bit off-track because you had earlier indicated you had attended regional meetings pertaining to the topic. That was why I said, "you and I both know that wasn't the sum total of consultation done". Then you said, "actually I don't know that...that's why I asked", which had me a bit baffled, cause it seemed like we were stuck in a loop.

You then reiterated your criticism of F&W because of the $13.25 per fish cost in 2006. My response to this criticism was, and is, that attributing the cause of that and some of the other features of the initial tag system I highlighted yesterday (e.g. short harvest season, no undersubscribed tag availability), is simply wrong. You can choose to accept my testament or not, but as a witness to the events, I can tell you that these aspects were either endorsed by, or in some cases, outright recommended by, the stakeholders at that meeting, most prominently AFGA. I don't know how to make that more clear.

Now ultimately, if you still choose to fault F&W as being the ultimate decision-maker, who could have rejected those endorsements and recommendations, then fair enough. That doesn't smell right to me, though, and they would have done so at their public relations peril. Nor does it smell right to say F&W called it a new angling opportunity or that they are out of touch, for the reasons I've already stated.

Beacuse my tone or demeanor can't come across in this digital media, please know that I respect you and value your thoughts and contributions to the outdoors. Thanks and take care.