No more Perch in Trout lakes

[McLeod]

So if I understand this correctly , there is no more harvest of perch in the stocked lakes such as Spring , Hasse , Obed etc.
I hope they post lots of signs.

[willy]

from the regs
Hasse Lake (13-52-2-W5) – Open all year – Trout limit 5; Perch limit 15
.Spring (Cottage) Lake – (30-52-1-W5) – Open all year – Trout limit 5; Perch limit 15

[nicemustang]

I think the regs mean, if they don't list a perch limit in the lake, you can't keep any...at least that's the way I understood it.

[McLeod]

So explain the logic behind that. Yes on some , no on others.

[Morph1]

Originally Posted by McLeod

So explain the logic behind that. Yes on some , no on others.

What Logic??? , the fisheries here are managed by a bunch of crayons,
they are 100 years away from discovering the word LOGIC and another 100 away from defining the word itself .

[redneck posse]

Originally Posted by nicemustang

I think the regs mean, if they don't list a perch limit in the lake, you can't keep any...at least that's the way I understood it.

not sure i always thought if a lake had perch in it and was not in the regs it meant you could keep 15... might be a good question to ask F&W.

[kostianych]

even if the lake is not in the regs:
C. For other PP2 Lakes, Reservoirs and Ponds not included under (A) or (B) and for fish species not mentioned at a listed lake.
Open all year – Walleye limit 3 over 50 cm; Pike limit 3 over 63 cm; Perch limit 15; Lake Whitefish limit 10; Burbot limit 10; (where present, Trout limit 5; Mountain Whitefish limit 5 over 30 cm); Bait allowed.

[goober]

Originally Posted by Morph1

What Logic??? , the fisheries here are managed by a bunch of crayons,

Too funny, true, but hilarious!!

[AlbertaAngler]

Originally Posted by kostianych

even if the lake is not in the regs:
C. For other PP2 Lakes, Reservoirs and Ponds not included under (A) or (B) and for fish species not mentioned at a listed lake.
Open all year – Walleye limit 3 over 50 cm; Pike limit 3 over 63 cm; Perch limit 15; Lake Whitefish limit 10; Burbot limit 10; (where present, Trout limit 5; Mountain Whitefish limit 5 over 30 cm); Bait allowed.

except that in the 2009 regs it states

To reduce the incentive of illegal stocking the retention of pike and perch in waters stocked with trout or grayling is illegal unless specified in water body specific regulations.

So I have to agree with nicemustang - if it is a stocked trout lake and it does not specify that you can keep perch or pike I don't believe you can.

[nicemustang]

It says and I quote: "To reduce the incentive of illegal stocking the retention of pike and perch in waters stocked with trout or grayling is illegal unless specified in water body specific regulations."

[nicemustang]

Yeah, beat me to it....I would love to have confirmation.

[goober]

Originally Posted by nicemustang

Yeah, beat me to it....I would love to have confirmation.

Confirmation granted, you are correct!!

[Morph1]

Originally Posted by nicemustang

It says and I quote: "To reduce the incentive of illegal stocking the retention of pike and perch in waters stocked with trout or grayling is illegal unless specified in water body specific regulations."

That is absolutely brilliant idea and I can see right away how the illegal stocking is gonna end , I already see the difference
Lets leave the predator alone and let it grow to abnormal proportions and on top of that lets stock it with the baby 10 cm rainbows to feed the reproducing predatory fish.

How F***ing Brilliant is that I wonder if Ted M had something to do with that I mean they must've got some help from outside some other thinking source to do that ,I just don't see how they could come up with this idea on their own ....

Cheers and smile its healthy

[Penner]

Originally Posted by Morph1

What Logic??? , the fisheries here are managed by a bunch of crayons,
they are 100 years away from discovering the word LOGIC and another 100 away from defining the word itself .

Whoa, give fisheries management credit for try something differnent!!!

To perhpas clarify and as I understand - It will be "illegal" to keep either pike and or perch from bodies of water specifically stocked with trout or grayling.

My understanding of the logic behind this is that because nobody will be allowed to keep any Perch from a Trout or Grayling stocked body of water there will not be no incentive/reason for anyone to illegally introduce Perch into those bodies of water in the first place! Unless their incentive is to create a C&R trophy Perch fishery?

We have to fix the problem and the problem is not that the Perch, Pike, or Walleye are in those bodies of water but rather that someone put them in their illegally. The people are the problem not the fish!!!

Makes perfect sense to me. It’s thinking outside of the box now we will have to wait and see if it works. I would assume they are planning to kill off the illegally introduced species in the near future with this new regulation in-place.

I like the idea.

[kostianych]

Originally Posted by nicemustang

It says and I quote: "To reduce the incentive of illegal stocking the retention of pike and perch in waters stocked with trout or grayling is illegal unless specified in water body specific regulations."

that`s correct, I agree (according to the Important Changes For 2009 ), but how to be if the lake (pond, paddle) is not named in the regs?

[Morph1]

Penner sorry ,
but I am wondering if you put your right shoe on your left foot and the left one on the right foot, do you put your shirt inside out and walk backwards moving forward.
This is not gonna work, have you ever seen a boat with a FWO on a pot hole lakes??? how are they gonna check if guys on the boat are not keeping the pike and perch ?? how is this enforcement going to help to the lakes that are already over populated with illegal fish species???
You're gonna talk about stunted fishery when folks are allowd to keep the illegal stocked fish , now how do you see ecosystem doing with the closure of harvesting the illegal fish ??? what is gonna be happening in the waters of Hasse lake (Example) if you could not harvest the perch, if this gonna go on in a lake like that, next 2 years you will be able to walk on water cause it will be so extremly populated with already ilegally introduced fish and no chance for trout to recover in any way.

Sorry man I eat my soup with a spoon not a FORK !!

[Deano]

Originally Posted by Penner

Whoa, give fisheries management credit for try something differnent!!!

To perhpas clarify and as I understand - It will be "illegal" to keep either pike and or perch from bodies of water specifically stocked with trout or grayling.

My understanding of the logic behind this is that because nobody will be allowed to keep any Perch from a Trout or Grayling stocked body of water there will not be no incentive/reason for anyone to illegally introduce Perch into those bodies of water in the first place! Unless their incentive is to create a C&R trophy Perch fishery?

We have to fix the problem and the problem is not that the Perch, Pike, or Walleye are in those bodies of water but rather that someone put them in their illegally. The people are the problem not the fish!!!

Makes perfect sense to me. It’s thinking outside of the box now we will have to wait and see if it works. I would assume they are planning to kill off the illegally introduced species in the near future with this new regulation in-place.

I like the idea.

I can see your point Penner. With all the talk about how there is no decent Perch fishing close to Edmonton, some people may be tempted to do something about it. I have never fished Hasse but I have heard from people there were some nice Perch in there for a couple of years. Unfortunately the ones who illegally stock the Perch don't care about rules and will keep them anyway.
It seems like nothing the government does is the right approach. But I agree with you it is nice to see them thinking outside the box.

Deano

[Cal]

To me it seems lake the oposite aproach would have been more logical... no size or catch limit on pike or perch in trout lakes. Only time will tell if this new rule will work but I cant see it working out very well.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Deano

I can see your point Penner. With all the talk about how there is no decent Perch fishing close to Edmonton, some people may be tempted to do something about it. I have never fished Hasse but I have heard from people there were some nice Perch in there for a couple of years. Unfortunately the ones who illegally stock the Perch don't care about rules and will keep them anyway.
It seems like nothing the government does is the right approach. But I agree with you it is nice to see them thinking outside the box.

Deano

Time will tell

The premise is that if you put perch in a trout lake you ruin the trout lake and can't catch perch either. If you assume that these idiots are putting perch places in order to be the hero and have perch nearby for a few years until they stunt then this take away the incentive for them. If they are smart or not totally dumb then they will stop the practice. Also with the increased negative feelings towards these sorts of stupid illegal bucket stockings combined with the loss of a trout fishery...this behavoir will cease. Without trying something...only chaos and extremely poor fishing is in the horizon.

If anyone is dead set against this sort of regulation...come up with a better one.

History has proven in a lake that does not regularly winterkill or gets aerated that:

1. Trout do very well for ever and ever
2. Perch do very well then stunt and become a wasted fishery
3. Trout and perch do poorly together
4. Intensive fishing perch in a trout lake hardly dents the population.
5. Lake after lake is getting vandalized in this fashion.
6. Millions of dollars have been wasted trying to fix the problem to no avail
7. Most of these lakes are smaller lakes that can not support a harvest of walleye and pike. Therefore with a limited population such a fishery consisting of small walleye, pike and perch would not do well. Also stocking walleye is expensive, pike are seriously impacted by habiltat loss along the shoreline and perch will most likely explode still and be uncontrolled by the predators due to the advance start in the population explosion cycle.

Therefore...rather than complain about the problem...be part of the solution. What would you do to stop this from happening? That is the most important problem. It needs to be addressed before there is no more trout around and the same guys now complain about the lake of trout fishing cause there are too many small perch lakes around.

Then you need to come up with a solution to combat the population boom on the current illegally stocked perch lakes.

I would suggest you get a group together and approach your local fish and game association. Offer to raise some funds for buying some fyke nets and 1 inch stretch mesh gill nets. Then round up volunteers...put together a netting schedule and start netting the crap out of one trout lake stocked with perch. Run the fyke nets over night and during the day. Kill all perch...live release all trout. Then during the day run the gill nets in a cycling fashion...set net...wait 15-20 minutes then check the start again for trapped fish. Kill perch release trout. Repeat if successful. Lengthen set time to compensate for lack of fish or move net. If trout mortality becomes a question...short set time. With intensive netting, you may prove to help bring the fishery back. Offer the perch to the poor or set up a cleaning station and fillet...beer batter and deep fry for the end of the day volunteer perch fry...

While you are at it, tie up any illegal perch stockers and cover in honey and place on red ant colony...

Cheers

Sun

[Couleestalker]

This new regulation will work great for stoked lakes that do not currently have introcduced pike or perch. What about all the lakes that already have perch in them? It won't do a thing to increase the trout fishery in those lakes. Now that the regs are set, the lakes with illegally introduced fish must be cleaned out (kill everything) and start stocking trout once again, and hopefully the new regs wil deter people from putting perch in them again.

[Penner]

Originally Posted by Morph1

Penner sorry ,
but I am wondering if you put your right shoe on your left foot and the left one on the right foot, do you put your shirt inside out and walk backwards moving forward.
This is not gonna work, have you ever seen a boat with a FWO on a pot hole lakes??? how are they gonna check if guys on the boat are not keeping the pike and perch ?? how is this enforcement going to help to the lakes that are already over populated with illegal fish species???
You're gonna talk about stunted fishery when folks are allowd to keep the illegal stocked fish , now how do you see ecosystem doing with the closure of harvesting the illegal fish ??? what is gonna be happening in the waters of Hasse lake (Example) if you could not harvest the perch, if this gonna go on in a lake like that, next 2 years you will be able to walk on water cause it will be so extremly populated with already ilegally introduced fish and no chance for trout to recover in any way.

Sorry man I eat my soup with a spoon not a FORK !!

Dude, the regulation doesn’t even take effect until April 1st and you are already calling it dead in the water. It’s a lot easier to be a pessimist I guess. For the record, I didn't say it was going to work I just said I liked the idea. Good disscusion anyways.

P.S. Can you really eat soup or is it more of a drink?

Originally Posted by Deano

I can see your point Penner. With all the talk about how there is no decent Perch fishing close to Edmonton, some people may be tempted to do something about it. I have never fished Hasse but I have heard from people there were some nice Perch in there for a couple of years. Unfortunately the ones who illegally stock the Perch don't care about rules and will keep them anyway.
It seems like nothing the government does is the right approach. But I agree with you it is nice to see them thinking outside the box.

Deano

One thing is certain, the current rules are clearly not working so may as well try something different you never know. I agree the ones who illegally stock the Perch don't care about rules and will keep them anyway I just hope there are more CO's hired to enforce the rules otherwise this entire discussion is pointless.

[pdfish]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Time will tell


I would suggest you get a group together and approach your local fish and game association. Offer to raise some funds for buying some fyke nets and 1 inch stretch mesh gill nets. Then round up volunteers...put together a netting schedule and start netting the crap out of one trout lake stocked with perch. Run the fyke nets over night and during the day. Kill all perch...live release all trout. Then during the day run the gill nets in a cycling fashion...set net...wait 15-20 minutes then check the start again for trapped fish. Kill perch release trout. Repeat if successful. Lengthen set time to compensate for lack of fish or move net. If trout mortality becomes a question...short set time. With intensive netting, you may prove to help bring the fishery back. Offer the perch to the poor or set up a cleaning station and fillet...beer batter and deep fry for the end of the day volunteer perch fry...

While you are at it, tie up any illegal perch stockers and cover in honey and place on red ant colony...

Cheers

Sun

I like this idea, and would be willing to help out with this if it ever got off the ground. I'd even be willing to use my boat as a trawler.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by pdfish

I like this idea, and would be willing to help out with this if it ever got off the ground. I'd even be willing to use my boat as a trawler.

Netting every day for the summer will help big time...but also netting over the course of a few years. Also snorkle and scuba guys sucking up eggs will be huge benefit. No seining required. All nets are stationary.

Cheers

[linemanpete]

Originally Posted by Cal

To me it seems lake the oposite aproach would have been more logical... no size or catch limit on pike or perch in trout lakes. Only time will tell if this new rule will work but I cant see it working out very well.

I agree I noted this on the survey that was posted a little while back. This seems most 'logical' to me

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by linemanpete

I agree I noted this on the survey that was posted a little while back. This seems most 'logical' to me

Think about it.

If you said you can kill and keep as many perch of any size from an illegally stocked lake...don't you think the guys doing the illegal stocking will jump for joy and stock the remaining lakes?

Seriously... The first priority is to ensure this behavoir stops. Second priority is to deal with previous damage.

[McLeod]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Think about it.

If you said you can kill and keep as many perch of any size from an illegally stocked lake...don't you think the guys doing the illegal stocking will jump for joy and stock the remaining lakes?

Seriously... The first priority is to ensure this behavoir stops. Second priority is to deal with previous damage.

Make sense but why allow any harvest at some of the trout lakes such as Hasse and Spring. If your going to bring in the no harvest regulation why not have it at ALL the stocked trout lakes ?

[Morph1]

Think about it.

If you said you can kill and keep as many perch of any size from an illegally stocked lake...don't you think the guys doing the illegal stocking will jump for joy and stock the remaining lakes?

Seriously... The first priority is to ensure this behavoir stops. Second priority is to deal with previous damage.

Sundance are you seriously thinking that the new regulation put in effect is gonna help the lakes already stocked with the illegal fish species???
It's just plain and simple IT WILL NOT ! it does not take a rocket scientist to figure this one out and is this gonna stop the illegal stocking to the trout pot hole lakes that are not currently stocked with perch and pike ?? perhaps but what lakes would those be ????
tell me what trout pot hole lakes around Edmonton do not contain perch ???
almost all of them do, there is a lits posted by Mr Don Anderson describing
which pot hole lakes are affected. why won't you read it and see it for yourself and then perhaps comment on the new regulation.
I Like your idea though with the netting and no limit but I totally disagree with the upcoming regs regarding this issue - dumb as much as almost most of the things those guys come up with.
Regs need to be put in place buy the people that actually do some fishing not the office not giving **** beaurocrats that like to carry a debates, get paid , go home and play violin all day long

[Penner]

Originally Posted by Morph1

Sundance are you seriously thinking that the new regulation put in effect is gonna help the lakes already stocked with the illegal fish species???
It's just plain and simple IT WILL NOT ! it does not take a rocket scientist to figure this one out and is this gonna stop the illegal stocking to the trout pot hole lakes that are not currently stocked with perch and pike ?? perhaps but what lakes would those be ????
tell me what trout pot hole lakes around Edmonton do not contain perch ???
almost all of them do, there is a lits posted by Mr Don Anderson describing
which pot hole lakes are affected. why won't you read it and see it for yourself and then perhaps comment on the new regulation.
I Like your idea though with the netting and no limit but I totally disagree with the upcoming regs regarding this issue - dumb as much as almost most of the things those guys come up with.
Regs need to be put in place buy the people that actually do some fishing not the office not giving **** beaurocrats that like to carry a debates, get paid , go home and play violin all day long

I would assume the plan going forward would be to selectively kill off the lakes one-by-one chemically, or by forced winterkill, or by what ever means. Historically the chemical method appears to be preferred and most effective method but to chemically remove fish from a body of water requires many pprovals from all levels of government as well as from DFO. My understanding is that it is also very expensive $$$.

I think we can all agree just leaving the existing illegally introduced fish species in the bodies of water with no plans to remove them in the near future would be really pointless. Again both ways are speculative right now because until the plan is actually exercised, nobody can say it will or will not work.

[DoUCWhatIC]

Penner,

You have made some great points and I commend you on your patience. Some individuals are completely ignorant to this issue but seem compelled to provide unproductive and often attacking commentary. I suppose that is just reality on a public forum. Eat your soup with a fork if you want!!!

[Jamie]

Guys at first blush I thought "WHAT A STUPID IDEA"

But then I got to thinking..

#1 do fishermen even put a dent in the illegal perch populations?

#2 If not then we must find away to get rid of the Illegals ASAP

#3 We must find away to discourage people from fishing for perch. If they cant fish for them, they wont want to become amature bioligists

Actually not a bad idea. Interested to see if it works.

Jamie