2018 fishing regs??

[wind drift]

Originally Posted by RavYak

Calling and Spencer both have healthy populations covering numerous age classes due to slot limits in recent years. I cant wait to see the next netting data for Spencer now that they switched to minimum size instead of slot. It will probably be fairly obvious that slot was a better choice and that they should have left the regs alone.

I dont think as highly of the tag system as some others do. It has hurt a number of our lakes by wiping out competing species and simply put they dont have the data to micromanage these lakes properly especially on some of these more remote lakes they are starting/wanting to implement tags on.

I think it can be of value in our very high pressure lakes close to the cities like say Pigeon but that is all. Slot limits make more sense then minimum size limits on almost all other lakes yet our fisheries refuses to implement them and always comes up with crazy arguments as to why they dont work, most of which make zero sense.

Please explain the process whereby targeting a quota of walleye in one or more size classes has wiped out competing species. I’m very interested to learn more of the science applied to form this conclusion. I’m also interested to know the basis for refuting Dr. Sullivan’s statements in the carrot hypothesis article.

[deschambault]

All I know about slot limits are a few lakes I have fished. The closest is Tobin and I have caught 20 lb pike as well as 30" walleye and many smaller fish. The main difference between this lake and Alberta ones in my estimation is enforcement. At Tobin you see F&W officers every day around the boat ramp and cleaning table whereas you see one or two a year in Alberta. My favourite bass lake near Houston got pounded 365 days a year yet produced lots of slot sized bass and the odd big one. It also was enforced (there may be a theme there).

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by wind drift

Please explain the process whereby targeting a quota of walleye in one or more size classes has wiped out competing species. I’m very interested to learn more of the science applied to form this conclusion. I’m also interested to know the basis for refuting Dr. Sullivan’s statements in the carrot hypothesis article.

I remember having Dr. Sullivan come into our club and give seminars on walleye probably 20-25 years ago. I have read many of his studies and he is without a doubt one of the most knowledgeable walleye Dr's in our province and has studied walleye in lakes and rivers for decades.............ravyak is a guy who fishes sometime, is opinionated but it is quite obvious doesn't have a clue on the science of our fisheries especially walleye.

[CNP]

I went through the online table for ES1. I like the table, no problem there, I believe I am interpreting it correctly but can someone confirm for me that there is zero retention on the mainstream Crowsnest River at all times of the year. The mainstream river is listed separately from it's tributaries and the tributaries have retention on bktr, bntr and mnwh (date specific).

Can you please confirm this?

[wind drift]

Originally Posted by CNP

I went through the online table for ES1. I like the table, no problem there, I believe I am interpreting it correctly but can someone confirm for me that there is zero retention on the mainstream Crowsnest River at all times of the year. The mainstream river is listed separately from it's tributaries and the tributaries have retention on bktr, bntr and mnwh (date specific).

Can you please confirm this?

Yup, thats how it is. The regs for the Crow finally make sense, given its one of our blue ribbon streams, and are way less complicated. Plus, now it be enjoyed all year.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Lake whitefish and burbot limits are way too high.

Agree as well.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by wind drift

Please explain the process whereby targeting a quota of walleye in one or more size classes has wiped out competing species. I’m very interested to learn more of the science applied to form this conclusion. I’m also interested to know the basis for refuting Dr. Sullivan’s statements in the carrot hypothesis article.

The high numbers of walleye out compete the other species like pike, perch and whitefish. When AEP was doing their management discussions in the fall this was the main issue anglers kept bringing up because now we have all these lakes that you can catch 50+ walleye at in a day but can't keep any unless lucky to get tags and can't catch anything else anymore because they don't compete well enough with the walleye(especially since these other species are open limits and walleye protected which has led to over fishing for these other species). Pigeon, Ste. Anne, Wabamun, Lac La Biche, the list goes on of examples where pike or perch populations have been hurt significantly by protected walleye regulations. Pigeon is one of the best examples where the pike population collapsed due to fishing pressure and walleye stocking/protection then never recovered even though they now are C&R(and were effectively C&R for a while with the previous over 100 cm regs).

Originally Posted by bobalong

I remember having Dr. Sullivan come into our club and give seminars on walleye probably 20-25 years ago. I have read many of his studies and he is without a doubt one of the most knowledgeable walleye Dr's in our province and has studied walleye in lakes and rivers for decades.............ravyak is a guy who fishes sometime, is opinionated but it is quite obvious doesn't have a clue on the science of our fisheries especially walleye.

The comment I quoted on was not worded clearly and I hadn't read the article referencing this carrot hypothesis yet.

I just read the section referencing this "carrot hypothesis" and its talk about pike is referencing a reverse slot limit... Aka they allowed anglers to keep small fish while trying to protect fish between 60-100 cm. Reverse slots don't work with heavy pressure, that does not mean that slot sizes won't as it is completely different. As that article says the population did well with 63 cm minimum size regs, it is fairly obvious that slot sizes would have been even more effective as they are the exact same thing with added protection for the odd fish that makes it through the slot... With the 63 cm regs it says that few fish made it to 70-80+ cm size. So it seems that the obvious choice would have been to set a slot size of 63-70 or 75 cm because then the few fish that made it above that size would have been protected and there still would have been a healthy population of smaller fish. Fisheries has for some reason tried reverse slots in a number of situations but almost never given slot limits a fair try other then to my knowledge at Calling and Spencer both of which did well under those regs...

Sullivan might know a thing or two about walleye but I fail to see how no limit brookie harvesting on small streams and reverse slot limits for pike have any meaningful value when talking about slot limits or tags for walleye... If you had to ask me I would say it is just another article trying to gain support for the tag program by confusing anglers with poorly chosen examples. Just like in the fall when they put out the pamphlet saying slots don't work but minimum size limits do...

[Brandonkop]

The Minister's introduction was pretty disgusting to me, stating lakes were devoid of fish 20 years ago and the only reason there are fish now is because of their management strategies.

Do you guys remember any empty lake 20 years ago? Our main lake where we have a cabin and I grew up fishing used to be full of perch, could keep walleye and pike although thinner populations. Now there is zilch for perch, millions of walleye, no baitfish, no pike... limits 0 walleye, 0 pike, 5 perch. Tell me where is the 20 years of progress these brilliant scientists like Sullivan have accomplished???? How is that better???? This is a lake that never had a native population of walleye. I think we need to start bonking these walleye and restoring our fisheries to their former state prior to the INVASIVE walleye was introduced. The walleye has destroyed the natural structure of fish populations in our home water body as it has many across the province. She says they're allowing more harvest opportunities and all I see is more lakes with 0 retention.

Clearly these people are clueless. This whole tag thing is a retarded money grab. You cannot focus solely on one species in a complex ecosystem and give it sole priority. Not just one species, we're talking an Apex Predator. Any scientist who does that failed biology.

What if Minister of wildlife protected, stocked, and reintroduced wolves to super population levels to the point where they killed all the deer and other prey animals disappeared. Would they have done a good thing??? Well this is exactly what they've done to our fisheries. Some of you don't agree cause you can actually catch and release a 100 stunted 2 pound walleye on a jig and minnow... knock yourselves out.

Big fail Alberta.

[deschambault]

Years ago you used to fish for pike because they were fun to catch and you used to fish for walleye because they were better eating. Granted, there weren't that many walleye so you ended up eating the odd pike. Then the Southern reservoirs became managed for walleye with zero retention while the pike were on their own. As such, if I wanted to catch 50 fish and release them all I would fish for walleye and if I wanted fish lunch I would fish for pike. Now all of a sudden F&W believes that there are almost no fish in these reservoirs (Newell, CV, McGregor, Badger, Travers, Little Bow and Rolling Hills). I can still catch 10 pike in a couple of hours in either Newell or CV (don't fish the others as much) but can't keep one for lunch. All of the talk and examples in the regs are for central and northern Alberta. It seems a Calgary hate or something that all the research etc. is directed north and the south just gets a blanket "no retention".

[LeonH]

I am having a hard time finding new regulations on Carson Lake/McLeod Lake in the new regulations. I can see Little McLeod and McLeod Tributaries to the lake but not the main lake itself.

Am I missing something here???

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by Brandonkop

The Minister's introduction was pretty disgusting to me, stating lakes were devoid of fish 20 years ago and the only reason there are fish now is because of their management strategies.

Do you guys remember any empty lake 20 years ago? Our main lake where we have a cabin and I grew up fishing used to be full of perch, could keep walleye and pike although thinner populations. Now there is zilch for perch, millions of walleye, no baitfish, no pike... limits 0 walleye, 0 pike, 5 perch. Tell me where is the 20 years of progress these brilliant scientists like Sullivan have accomplished???? How is that better????

Same points were made at the walleye/pike meetings in the fall.

Fisheries are busy patting themselves on the back because they have netting data showing better walleye populations then in past decades and compared to our neighbouring US states etc. Meanwhile anglers all over the province are getting frustrated because they can't keep anything and all species other then walleye are in decline.

When questioned about the other species the bios say we don't believe you anglers and we don't test for perch, whitefish etc populations so have no data... They do test for pike although rarely on lakes that don't have walleye populations and their netting methods are not set up properly for pike. They don't focus on the right areas(shallow weeds etc) and try to make up for that with a magical correction factor applied to pike netting data... There are lakes I can take a guy to and you can fish all day out where they are putting nets and you will be lucky to catch a few fish, start hitting the right areas and you can catch 50+ in a day...

Fisheries told us they don't have the financing to net for all species and that they don't even have the financing to test for walleye like they need to if they are going to implement the tag system everywhere. To me it seems like they are fighting a losing battle relying so heavily on netting data that they can't even afford to implement properly. Their goals have been to single mindedly increase walleye populations and although they may have succeeded at this they have ultimately failed in creating balanced ecosystems and have also failed at creating catch and keep opportunities. They would have been better leaving things as they were with poor walleye populations, sure anglers would have been frustrated with a lack of walleye but there would have been far better fishing for other species and many of our lakes are far better suited to pike and perch(which is why some of these lakes can't sustain even minimal walleye fishing pressure).

Wabamun is a great example where yet again the bios argue with fisherman saying there is no decline in pike population. Why? Because they haven't netted it since 2015 so have no evidence supporting such a claim... The 2015 data already showed a decline but it was within statistical error... I can't wait till they net it again and stand there with egg on their face for telling us for years that we don't know what we are talking about... It blows my mind how our bios who literally make their living monitoring these waterbodies have so little clue about what is going on and rely so heavily on sporadic netting data to make decisions or even informed opinions. Give these guys some fishing gear and tell them to get out in the field and I almost guarantee you they would have a better idea of what is going on in many of these lakes.

[Brandonkop]

Originally Posted by RavYak

Same points were made at the walleye/pike meetings in the fall.

Fisheries are busy patting themselves on the back because they have netting data showing better walleye populations then in past decades and compared to our neighbouring US states etc. Meanwhile anglers all over the province are getting frustrated because they can't keep anything and all species other then walleye are in decline.

When questioned about the other species the bios say we don't believe you anglers and we don't test for perch, whitefish etc populations so have no data... They do test for pike although rarely on lakes that don't have walleye populations and their netting methods are not set up properly for pike. They don't focus on the right areas(shallow weeds etc) and try to make up for that with a magical correction factor applied to pike netting data... There are lakes I can take a guy to and you can fish all day out where they are putting nets and you will be lucky to catch a few fish, start hitting the right areas and you can catch 50+ in a day...

Fisheries told us they don't have the financing to net for all species and that they don't even have the financing to test for walleye like they need to if they are going to implement the tag system everywhere. To me it seems like they are fighting a losing battle relying so heavily on netting data that they can't even afford to implement properly. Their goals have been to single mindedly increase walleye populations and although they may have succeeded at this they have ultimately failed in creating balanced ecosystems and have also failed at creating catch and keep opportunities. They would have been better leaving things as they were with poor walleye populations, sure anglers would have been frustrated with a lack of walleye but there would have been far better fishing for other species and many of our lakes are far better suited to pike and perch(which is why some of these lakes can't sustain even minimal walleye fishing pressure).

Wabamun is a great example where yet again the bios argue with fisherman saying there is no decline in pike population. Why? Because they haven't netted it since 2015 so have no evidence supporting such a claim... The 2015 data already showed a decline but it was within statistical error... I can't wait till they net it again and stand there with egg on their face for telling us for years that we don't know what we are talking about... It blows my mind how our bios who literally make their living monitoring these waterbodies have so little clue about what is going on and rely so heavily on sporadic netting data to make decisions or even informed opinions. Give these guys some fishing gear and tell them to get out in the field and I almost guarantee you they would have a better idea of what is going on in many of these lakes.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[huntsfurfish]

..................nevermind.

[RavYak]

I decided to take some time and look through reg changes this morning and see just how bad the regulation changes for pike and walleye are... As expected it is bad... If you haven't noticed the entries highlighted in each section of the regs are the ones that changed so you can double check the following if you don't believe me(since some people think I am just full of it because they drink too much fisheries koolaid)... In summary the following changes were made.

ES2: 1 lake saw a reduction in pike retention. NO waterbodies saw increases for pike or walleye retention.

ES3: 7 lakes were closed to pike retention. 3 lakes saw walleye retention increase(I don't believe they have much for walleye populations though) and 1 lake saw pike retention increase.

ES4: 1 lake was closed to walleye retention. 3 lakes were closed to pike retention and 1 saw a reduction. NO lakes saw increases in walleye or pike retention.

PP1: 4 lakes were closed to retention for walleye. 6 lakes closed to retention for pike. NO lakes saw increases retention for pike or walleye...

PP2: 4 lakes were closed to retention for pike, 1 other saw a reduction in pike. NO lakes saw increases in retention for pike or walleye...

NB1: 1 lake was closed to retention for walleye and 1 saw a reduction. 22 lakes were closed to retention for pike and 6 more saw reductions... Walleye retention was increased on 2 lakes and pike only on 1 lake.

NB2: 1 lake was closed to retention for walleye and 1 saw a reduction. 4 lakes were closed to retention for pike and 2 reduced. Only 1 lake saw an increase in pike retention...

NB3: 5 lakes were closed to walleye retention, 2 saw reductions. 6 lakes were closed to pike retention, 4 saw reductions. Only 1 lake saw a increase in walleye retention...

NB4: 7 lakes were closed to retention for pike and 1 saw a reduction. NO waterbodies saw increases to pike or walleye retention...


So in summary

12 lakes were closed to walleye retention and 4 saw reductions. To offset this 6 lakes saw increases in walleye retention, some of which are not significant...

59 lakes were closed to pike retention and 15 more saw reductions. To offset this only 3 lakes saw increases in pike retention...

Good thing they increased limits on 9 lakes to take the fishing pressure from the 71 they closed to retention... If you fish a number of these lakes and others like I do that you will know it is only a matter of time before many others get closed since some of the ones just closed do not have bad fishing relatively speaking. At this rate it will only be a few more years before everything is C&R or tags... Great job fisheries...

I wouldn't have a problem with these closures if they were actually needed but they are so far from needed it is disgusting bordering on comical. I have now won a North America kayak fishing based tournament based solely on numbers of fish 2 years in a row(with over 600 other participants from across Canada and USA each year), we have some of the best fishing in North America and yet for some reason fisheries can't figure out how to sustain even minimal harvest...

Hopefully the above stats open up a few peoples eyes, if you ever want to see harvest return here in AB I recommend getting involved to try and change fisheries managements methods/objectives as they clearly do not have the correct end goal in mind...

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by Brandonkop

This whole tag thing is a retarded money grab.

Can anyone find that good post about how much money tags collect and where the miniscule amount, after expenses, goes?

I tried to find it but got my own fail for that.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Can anyone find that good post about how much money tags collect and where the miniscule amount, after expenses, goes?

I tried to find it but got my own fail for that.

They actually lose money... I don't know of a source that backs up that claim but that is pretty much what they explained to us at the walleye meetings in the fall. They said they can't afford to implement the tag system everywhere and if I remember right it is because they can't afford to do all the extra netting and monitoring that is required to micro manage fisheries with a tagging program.

I could be wrong but if I remember right the money pays for the administration fees etc and then any excess gets put into a general fund which goes towards paying for these other expenses.

[wind drift]

I think there may be confusion between science and government decision-making. Twenty years ago, there were many depleted pike populations, as well as walleye. Despite that, and a pike management plan that prescribed catch and release for those collapsed pike populations, the “powers that were” decided that approving catch and release regs for pike lakes, just after doing that for walleye, was not going to fly. They gave in to those who complained that would be taking away too much from anglers. The result is that catch and release was kept off the table and pike didn’t get the same protection as walleye. Our walleye fisheries are much better now, pike not so much.

Finally, the situation looks like its getting fixed, but it’s taken way too long in my view. There are some increased harvest opportunities on walleye and better protection for pike. I expect we will see some greatly improved pike fisheries within 2-3 years, provided that poaching and hooking / handling effects don’t thwart the outcome.

As another example of decisions not being purely made on the science, there are trade offs made in the slot size limit case. Rav, you say that a harvest slot of say, 63 to 75 cm, is “better” than a 63 cm min. size limit. It is, if your goal is simply to optimize the pike recovery and there are no other considerations. But, if anglers are telling the government they want harvest opportunities, then making large pike which have spawned at least a couple of times available for harvest is a trade off. As Dr. Sullivan points out, treating fish like carrots in the garden and killing the young fish doesn’t make more older fish, so harvest has to target the old fish unless a quota harvest approach (e.g. tags) is used.

The bios have to consider fishing pressure, our diversity of wants, and weigh the tradeoffs. It can’t be easy. I bet if you talk to any fisheries bio about the management of a particular lake, you won’t just hear them talk about what the data and science show, but also the social (and maybe even political) aspects that factor in.

What I think is a big improvement in the new pike plan is the inclusion of options for creating some high quality & “trophy” fisheries, using larger min. size limits and catch & release. I’m excited to see how’s things go from here.

[Brandonkop]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Can anyone find that good post about how much money tags collect and where the miniscule amount, after expenses, goes?

I tried to find it but got my own fail for that.

The money doesn't just vaporize. It's going to pay government employees and to the organization dispensing tags. That's what our taxes always go to pay. They used to get nothing when you kept walleye, now they get money for every draw and tag. You're telling me the bean counters aren't counting beans? They'll make all kinds of excuses and people believe them.

No, i don't really think that's the sole reason for the tag system. I think the tag system is a poor excuse for fishery management. People around North America think we are the laughing stock of fisheries with tags for fish. I haven't seen in any national publication where tags have been praised as a great management strategy.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by wind drift

I think there may be confusion between science and government decision-making. Twenty years ago, there were many depleted pike populations, as well as walleye. Despite that, and a pike management plan that prescribed catch and release for those collapsed pike populations, the “powers that were” decided that approving catch and release regs for pike lakes, just after doing that for walleye, was not going to fly. They gave in to those who complained that would be taking away too much from anglers. The result is that catch and release was kept off the table and pike didn’t get the same protection as walleye. Our walleye fisheries are much better now, pike not so much.

Finally, the situation looks like its getting fixed, but it’s taken way too long in my view. There are some increased harvest opportunities on walleye and better protection for pike. I expect we will see some greatly improved pike fisheries within 2-3 years, provided that poaching and hooking / handling effects don’t thwart the outcome.

As another example of decisions not being purely made on the science, there are trade offs made in the slot size limit case. Rav, you say that a harvest slot of say, 63 to 75 cm, is “better” than a 63 cm min. size limit. It is, if your goal is simply to optimize the pike recovery and there are no other considerations. But, if anglers are telling the government they want harvest opportunities, then making large pike which have spawned at least a couple of times available for harvest is a trade off. As Dr. Sullivan points out, treating fish like carrots in the garden and killing the young fish doesn’t make more older fish, so harvest has to target the old fish unless a quota harvest approach (e.g. tags) is used.

The bios have to consider fishing pressure, our diversity of wants, and weigh the tradeoffs. It can’t be easy. I bet if you talk to any fisheries bio about the management of a particular lake, you won’t just hear them talk about what the data and science show, but also the social (and maybe even political) aspects that factor in.

What I think is a big improvement in the new pike plan is the inclusion of options for creating some high quality & “trophy” fisheries, using larger min. size limits and catch & release. I’m excited to see how’s things go from here.

Agree, thanks for posting.

[wind drift]

Originally Posted by RavYak

we have some of the best fishing in North America and yet for some reason fisheries can't figure out how to sustain even minimal harvest..

Surely, you see the contradiction here. Creating some of the best fishing in North America with over 300,000 anglers and less than 500 pike/ walleye lakes means that not everyone can harvest a fish every trip. Short of restricting the number of anglers that can fish a lake per year, Alberta has figured out how to manage sustainable harvest.

[wind drift]

Originally Posted by Brandonkop

The money doesn't just vaporize. It's going to pay government employees and to the organization dispensing tags. That's what our taxes always go to pay. They used to get nothing when you kept walleye, now they get money for every draw and tag. You're telling me the bean counters aren't counting beans? They'll make all kinds of excuses and people believe them.

No, i don't really think that's the sole reason for the tag system. I think the tag system is a poor excuse for fishery management. People around North America think we are the laughing stock of fisheries with tags for fish. I haven't seen in any national publication where tags have been praised as a great management strategy.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Uh, no. I have a cousin who works for Montana fisheries. He says some Montanans are coming to Alberta for the walleye fishing and are pressuring their department to make their own fishing better. They are looking into quota/tag harvest options.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by wind drift

Yup, thats how it is. The regs for the Crow finally make sense, given its one of our blue ribbon streams, and are way less complicated. Plus, now it be enjoyed all year.

Less complicated? Could be even less complicated by closing the Crowsnest River. That to say that less complicated is not necessarily a good thing.

Yes the Crowsnest is a blue ribbon fishery, thriving with introduced/hybrid rainbows, cuttbows and browns, especially downstream of the CNP treated effluent discharge.......while native bulls are absent and cutties are rare.

I have not seen any evidence where the fishery on the Crowsnest is collapsing. In fact my experience is the opposite. Maintaining a slot size whereby any fish under 45 cm must be released is a sustainable management practice (rainbows, cuttbows and browns). My motivation for fishing includes retention. One fish 45 cm or better from the CNR is not sustainable?

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by Brandonkop

They used to get nothing when you kept walleye, now they get money for every draw and tag.

Dig the hole deeper, I'll get you a shovel. Anyways, would be nice to find how much goes to expenses and any remaining goes to. Of course it is easier to take pot shots at it in the meantime.

The point of it is more strict management of all age classes. I don't think there is some sinister plot here dreamed up by the government.

[Brandonkop]

Originally Posted by wind drift

Uh, no. I have a cousin who works for Montana fisheries. He says some Montanans are coming to Alberta for the walleye fishing and are pressuring their department to make their own fishing better. They are looking into quota/tag harvest options.

Tell me when it happens. Doesn't currently exist and a handful of people who want catch and release regs is not the majority. Montana has a 5 walleye daily limit and possession limit of 10. I doubt they're moving to tags. I mean seriously look at the limits in Montana. Sure catch and release fishermen love Alberta. Cause that's what we now are a catch and release provincial fishery.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by wind drift

As Dr. Sullivan points out, treating fish like carrots in the garden and killing the young fish doesn’t make more older fish, so harvest has to target the old fish unless a quota harvest approach (e.g. tags) is used.

This comment and ideology has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Reducing numbers of small fish without a doubt makes for more bigger fish. There are many examples of this, stocked lakes, perch lakes etc and the best lakes for size of fish almost never have high numbers of fish except in very rare cases like some of the huge very remote lakes up in the NWT etc that see so limited fishing pressure and natural predation etc that they can maintain large numbers of big fish.

Sullivan's examples have to be taken for the examples that they are. Removing young fish does not make bigger fish IF you remove too many young fish.

Open limits any size for brookies on small creeks doesn't lead to more big brookies because those creeks do not have strong enough fish holding ability to be able to sustain even minimal harvest especially when competing species have protection.

Reverse slot on pike also didn't work because there was too much pressure wiping out the small population before they could get to the slot size. He mentions high pressure and his example could have easily been used for the opposite reason if there had been lower fishing pressure on that lake leaving enough young fish to populate the larger sizes. It is a balancing game, just a little too much pressure and not enough fish get big/old and too little then pressure then a lake starts to see slower growth and smaller fish.

There is no easy one size fits all way to control fish populations. I have made many proposals in the past as I have learned more and I would like to think my current thinking would be a good option.

My current thinking for those that don't know is having slot limits in combination with a different tag program.

The slot limits would first be implemented with a minimum size set large enough to maintain the fishery. The upper slot size would then be set to try and protect the odd fish that is able to make it through the slot which usually happens with the faster growing good genetics fish which are the ones you want to keep around for a few more years.

The problem with minimum size limits is that there gets too be too many small fish leading to a hockey stick size distribution potentially leading to long term stunting. That is where the tag system comes into play and why they like it. Instead of trying to micro manage every age class of fish though like they currently are they should imo use a tag system to deal with the problem. Aka give a certain amount of tags but only for the small fish in order to properly thin them out.

This would be analagous to the carrot example. Actual controlled harvest that only thins the young population as much as necessary allowing the other fish to provide harvest opportunities and then protecting the odd fish with good genes/brains that survives its time in the slot size.

In short if you want to test the carrot hypothesis with fish you need to actually implement a program that allows you to do instead of drawing conclusions based off poor examples that are analogous to picking all your carrots when they are young and then wondering why you have no big carrots...

[Brandonkop]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Dig the hole deeper, I'll get you a shovel. Anyways, would be nice to find how much goes to expenses and any remaining goes to. Of course it is easier to take pot shots at it in the meantime.

The point of it is more strict management of all age classes. I don't think there is some sinister plot here dreamed up by the government.

Personally what the government has done by introducing a non native species to the detriment of native species is a sinister thing in my mind. Environmental catastrophe. If I dump a different species in a lake I'd get fined. They do it and pat themselves on the back.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by wind drift

Surely, you see the contradiction here. Creating some of the best fishing in North America with over 300,000 anglers and less than 500 pike/ walleye lakes means that not everyone can harvest a fish every trip. Short of restricting the number of anglers that can fish a lake per year, Alberta has figured out how to manage sustainable harvest.

No contradiction as I have been pointing out they are failing to find the balancing point, in fact they have overshot it significantly. I understand that we can't have regs like Saskatchewan for example but we also shouldn't have to catch 100s of fish before we are able to keep one... We have significantly better fishing then many SK lakes, the only difference is that when you catch something on one of those SK lakes you can probably take it home instead of having to release it...

The way they are closing all these lakes to retention is just creating more issues by concentrating pressure on the remaining lakes which will only lead to them closing as well...

This already happened with Gull and Buck for example where fishing pressure was funnelled to them with other closures/reductions nearby and now these lakes are now being closed to pike retention sending numerous anglers hunting for the few remaining lakes. Do you think places like Battle Lake will survive the extra pressure? It already has worse pike fishing then Gull or Buck(maybe not number wise but being able to catch a keeper size it was) and almost guaranteed it too will be closed in the next year or two now...

Fisheries needs to be focused on keeping our fisheries open and keeping the pressure spread out instead of converging the pressure. You mention 300k anglers on 500 waterbodies but that isn't the case because fisheries has funnelled those anglers year after year onto fewer and fewer waterbodies...

Look at the summary I posted earlier. They closed pike retention on over 50 lakes this year... Many of those were 3 fish limit lakes. It would have made much more sense to go to a 1 fish limit keeping the angling pressure on those lakes instead of converging it elsewhere... Increase the minimum size if necessary but leave the bloody lakes open instead of forcing all these anglers to go fish elsewhere(or quit fishing which I am sure is happening on a regular basis with the lack of retention available now).

I could count the number of fish I caught last year on my fingers... I fish C&R 95% of the time but this management still drives me nuts... I can only imagine how the rest of guys feel that prefer to be able to catch something when they go fishing.

[dfrobert]

Originally Posted by Brandonkop

The Minister's introduction was pretty disgusting to me, stating lakes were devoid of fish 20 years ago and the only reason there are fish now is because of their management strategies.

Do you guys remember any empty lake 20 years ago? Our main lake where we have a cabin and I grew up fishing used to be full of perch, could keep walleye and pike although thinner populations. Now there is zilch for perch, millions of walleye, no baitfish, no pike... limits 0 walleye, 0 pike, 5 perch. Tell me where is the 20 years of progress these brilliant scientists like Sullivan have accomplished???? How is that better???? This is a lake that never had a native population of walleye. I think we need to start bonking these walleye and restoring our fisheries to their former state prior to the INVASIVE walleye was introduced. The walleye has destroyed the natural structure of fish populations in our home water body as it has many across the province. She says they're allowing more harvest opportunities and all I see is more lakes with 0 retention.

Clearly these people are clueless. This whole tag thing is a retarded money grab. You cannot focus solely on one species in a complex ecosystem and give it sole priority. Not just one species, we're talking an Apex Predator. Any scientist who does that failed biology.

What if Minister of wildlife protected, stocked, and reintroduced wolves to super population levels to the point where they killed all the deer and other prey animals disappeared. Would they have done a good thing??? Well this is exactly what they've done to our fisheries. Some of you don't agree cause you can actually catch and release a 100 stunted 2 pound walleye on a jig and minnow... knock yourselves out.

Big fail Alberta.

AMEN!!!! Couldn't of said it better.

[wind drift]

For clarity, Rav, catch and release and closed are completely different. Seems to be confusion on that. You’re also assuming that 0 limit regs relocate angling pressure. It may well be fishing quality and other factors like facilities and access are stronger factors than harvest regs. Also, you don’t seem to consider that the regs apply to everyone with a sporffishing licence. Allowing even only 1 fish per angler per day, with potential of many thousands of anglers fishing most easily accessed lakes, may not be an option for recovering and sustainiing a fishery.

[fish99]

can anyone tell me why we need to catch 50 -100 fish a day , where is the challenge in that, this it seems what the fisheries is managing our lakes and rivers for, most bodies of water can not sustain a fish population of that magnitude and will have stunted fish .