Slot limit

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Exactly.

Fish over 50 cm. Will spawn at least once, in some lakes multiple times, ensuring that the fish are self sustaining.

Start removing fish under spawning size and risk goes up dramatically! If people can keep them, they will.

It is quite easy to target large fish (>50cm) and the regulation you suggest ensures that only breeders are harvested.

In bodies where recruitment is low to begin with, allowing a fish the chance to spawn a single time may not enable a sustainable population.



A narrow slot limit means that even if you catch fish all day, you may not catch a fish in the slot, and allowing a single fish over say, 65cm would enable trophy hunters to harvest a fish that has spawned many times.

With enough data, it should be possible to set a slot size which only targets a single age class.

To the guy who felt the need to bring up ethnicity like it matters, crawl back into your cave. You might not be racist, but your comment was ignorant regardless.

[ADIDAFish]

Originally Posted by Black Stim

The danger of a slot allowing fish smaller than a certain size is that with high enough angler pressure, fish are taken out of the population before they get to be spawning size. Then you are only counting on the older spawners to sustain the population, which will die out naturally over time and are removed with one over the slot size.

*2

A narrow slot range would be more effective with sustainability. To deal with Archer's concern about the fishing pressure you could raise or lower the number kept depending on the lake. 3 could be the normal and then if there is a lot of pressure maybe it is only 1 in the slot, if the fish are stunting then raise it to 5.

[aulrich]

I too have seen slot limits work so the concept is sound. If the population can handle the harvest.

I would also include tags catch x number of y fish province wide your done taking fish for the year for that spiecies.

I would limit it to the current possession limit

[0liver]

I don't think some of you realize that the reason its 'keep the bigger fish' is because the bigger fish have had a chance to spawn at least once or twice before being harvested, Harvesting the older fish will not deplete the "big fish gene pool" ... it will merely provide all fish a chance to spawn before being harvested. Introducing a slot size, for smaller fish, would only be working backwards..
I think this issue needs to be on the table of the next prov election, because with the way things are going, I don't see a bright future for our fragile lakes, let alone our wildlife in general.

*edit* I don't disagree with a limited harvest, a lot of Alberta's lakes [i.e pidgeon ] could do with a slot size, to start thinning out the ranks and providing more room for bigger fish to grow. For some lakes its the opposite, they need to have a chance to recover and repopulate.

[sco22]

I believe slot size harvest restrictions tend to work out well. Take a look at Spencer Lake. For years they had a tight slot size limit that was pretty well enforced. The slot size was removed a few years ago and now it handles the basic 1 over 50cm reasonably well. Now this is a remote lake and does not have the numbers of fishermen/women that a Slave or Calling Lake do. That said, you could see that changes in size of the catch each year.

Clearly it is not as simple as just throwing a slot size in, but really how does SRD win? We have too few lakes, with too many fishermen/women, with too many willing to break the rules (this is not a race specific issue - plenty of good old white people doing it too), with lots of technology. . .yet we expect we can drive one hour and fill the boat. Yes SRD does seem to be a bit slow to react or sometimes misguided, but isn't a big part of this an issue on the fisherman's expectations?

Count me in as a supporter.

Cheers.

[pickrel pat]

Originally Posted by 0liver

I don't think some of you realize that the reason its 'keep the bigger fish' is because the bigger fish have had a chance to spawn at least once or twice before being harvested, Harvesting the older fish will not deplete the "big fish gene pool" ... it will merely provide all fish a chance to spawn before being harvested. Introducing a slot size, for smaller fish, would only be working backwards..

this ^ ^ ^ ^

[Jayhad]

Wayne,
by no means am I trying to rain on your parade, I support anyone that wants to make a positive difference in our fisheries. SRD pretty much files petitions under G in the round file cabinet.

I know a few buddies that have had regulation changes implemented by SRD, they only do this every two years now. To get a change made, you need tonnes of data and a university level proposal. I'm in the midst of a proposal that I will present in 2014.

Now to your question, I do support slot limits depending on the sizes. a fishery like upper K i think needs a slot size the bullies there ae all stunted at 22"-24". One season of whacking could produce some pigs out of there.

[huntsfurfish]

For starters, SRD would need a whole lot more funding to control and keep track of slot limits. We actually need a petition to get them more funding.

Slot limits are in use with tags. Slot limits would require individual lake accessments(need money). Slot limits below the spawn age are a big risk especially if there is little to no information or control.

It is not an easy fix. Our lakes/reservoirs are few our fisherpeople are many.

Until SRD gets the funding they need, self sustaining fisheries are likely gonna be the best we get. However, there may be slot limit exceptions on some lakes.

ps I am speaking with regard to walleye mainly.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

For starters, SRD would need a whole lot more funding to control and keep track of slot limits. We actually need a petition to get them more funding.

Slot limits are in use with tags. Slot limits would require individual lake accessments(need money). Slot limits below the spawn age are a big risk especially if there is little to no information or control.

http://www.ab-conservation.com/go/de...venue-sources/

[WayneChristie]

Originally Posted by Jayhad

Wayne,
by no means am I trying to rain on your parade, I support anyone that wants to make a positive difference in our fisheries. SRD pretty much files petitions under G in the round file cabinet.

I know a few buddies that have had regulation changes implemented by SRD, they only do this every two years now. To get a change made, you need tonnes of data and a university level proposal. I'm in the midst of a proposal that I will present in 2014.

Now to your question, I do support slot limits depending on the sizes. a fishery like upper K i think needs a slot size the bullies there ae all stunted at 22"-24". One season of whacking could produce some pigs out of there.

Your proposal is exactly the kind of thing Id like to see, I know petitions are just noise, but at least it will catch their eye. An informed proposal just may
actually do some good, and Im thinking you could and would get a lot of backing from the forum members, which is pretty much the reason for this poll and post. I know slot limits would have to be varied depending on species and waterbody, but I think it beats the way the regs are set up now. I do like the idea of being able to keep a trophy fish if someone wants to, maybe make that a tag with a fee, thats the only tag Id be willing to buy, I already spend enough on my favourite addiction.
And just for the record, I hope SRD never allows a sturgeon harvest again.

[pike_king780]

Originally Posted by Justin.C

Do you think every albertan cares???? There are some cultures that take everything they canat every oppertunity... I hate to say it but it is true. We also have alot of immigrants that do not know anything about licences and stuff as they dont have anything like that were they are from... Also these guys get away with this as there is no money to have F&W officers checking things out...



This is the truth..I am not trying to be racist in any way...Also not everybody cares about anything but catching there limit just cause they love fish....They aint doing anything wrong in the governments eyes and it is legal... You and i may disagree though.

Agreed!!

[slivers86]

I think it would be a good idea. Could produce a few trophy lakes in alberta, which from what I read, we are in desperate need of.

[0liver]

I believe that each lake needs separate regulations, instead of a blanket slot-size for the whole of Alberta. There needs to be a comprehensive study of the lakes that are struggling, and the ones that need a slot size, [ie the over populated and stunted walleye lakes], and the ones that need a 0 Limit [ie some of the pike lakes like coal] should be evaluated and the proper measures taken.

There is no 'perfect' solution to our problems, and I think these issues will require everyone to change there perspectives completely on the dire situation that we are indeed facing.

[ericlin0122]

catch and release is the only solution to get trophy fishery in alberta.

look at what happens to beaver lake.

[0liver]

Originally Posted by ericlin0122

catch and release is the only solution to get trophy fishery in alberta.

look at what happens to beaver lake.

Look at what happened to pidgeon with catch-and-release only. Its a slippery slope both ways, not enough harvest, stunted pathetic fish, too much harvest and its a ghost town.

[BBJTKLE&FISHINGADVENTURES]

Alberta Doesn't have enough lakes to have a slot limit . It wouldn't work here even if they attempted it . Best way to make fishing any better close it down for 5 , 8 , 10 years , and then re open it . But that wont happy , have fun catching stocked fish ....

[C Taylor]

I think with more money for management a slot size could work but we may need a alternating season like 0 limit one year then slot size the next. For walleye I don't think many males get over 50 cm and keeping all the big females is obviously not working.
More money and maybe we could see walleye being stocked in a few more places.

[WayneChristie]

Im surprised with all the walleye addicts in Alberta, the groups and individuals havent gotten together to raise funds to pay for a stocking program

[chubbdarter]

Managing slot limits requires in depth studies prior to the inacting the regulation and requires very labour intensive studies to maintain its workings. Each lake being so different in its makeup, it would require a custom slot.
I dont believe SRD has the manpower or funding to do either.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

Managing slot limits requires in depth studies prior to the inacting the regulation and requires very labour intensive studies to maintain its workings. Each lake being so different in its makeup, it would require a custom slot.
I dont believe SRD has the manpower or funding to do either.

I agree

[slivers86]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

Managing slot limits requires in depth studies prior to the inacting the regulation and requires very labour intensive studies to maintain its workings. Each lake being so different in its makeup, it would require a custom slot.
I dont believe SRD has the manpower or funding to do either.

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

I agree

I agree as well. Mind you, if we are all willing to pay an extra 10-20$ for our license, at lets say 150000 licenses across the province, thats 2.25M. Average sallary of a Peace Officer for SRD I'd estimate is around $65000-$75000 per year.

according to my calculations, that could employ roughly 25 new officers for per season, with around 150000 in a pool to cover benefits, pension, etc for the company. If this were proposed, would everyone go for it? I know 25 officers isn't a lot, however its a start in the right direction.

Think about the criminal code, if there wasn't a police presence, would that book of rules mean anything? I think people see the fishing regulations the same way, and don't ever see anyone around checking licenses, barbless hooks, baiting, etc. I was probably out close to 20-30 times this year, and was checked up on 3 times. 10% isn't bad, and keeps it under harassment levels.

What I'm getting at thought, is enforcement is possible of a 'slot limit' approach, if we are willing to pay for it though? I know I would pay an extra 20$ a year.

[BeeGuy]

Do you think more enforcement would have a measurable or noticeable impact?

I do not think so.

Yes, I think that book of rules would mean something without police presence.

That book isn't what stops me from killing a man, or putting drugs up my nose, and the threat of being caught by a CO isn't what makes me follow the fishing reg's.

As far as I can tell, the people who fish the most, and catch the most, follow the reg's the most closely.

[Jayhad]

Originally Posted by Justin.C

We also have alot of immigrants that do not know anything about licences and stuff as they dont have anything like that were they are from... Also these guys get away with this as there is no money to have F&W officers checking things out...



This is the truth..I am not trying to be racist in any way....

I would have to disagree within the region I fish, I am on the Bow a lot and this season the majority (87.5%) of poachers I witnessed and called RAPP on were white males, on top of that of all the white males the majority were FOB Eastcoasters. I know this as I chum it up with most poachers, it gives me an opportunity to keep the video camera on them. Like the guy I caught long lining with bait, who told me to keep my eyes out for his stringer of 5 browns and a bunch of whites that drifted down stream.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Black Stim

The danger of a slot allowing fish smaller than a certain size is that with high enough angler pressure, fish are taken out of the population before they get to be spawning size. Then you are only counting on the older spawners to sustain the population, which will die out naturally over time and are removed with one over the slot size.

I can totally see and understand this side of the coin....what about a tiered season on certain lakes?....such and such a date is all C&R.....such and such a date with a slot size that makes sense?

The biggest draw back would be getting the anglers to read, understand, and follow the regulations.....although thats no different than the way things are now.

LC

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

As far as I can tell, the people who fish the most, and catch the most, follow the reg's the most closely.

Generalizing is never a good thing ...without elaborating and the likliness I will be called a rascist (not necessarily talking about visible minorities either, so the usuals who jump all over me for my comments can chill out)....I respectfully disagree with this comment.

LC

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Generalizing is never a good thing ...without elaborating and the likliness I will be called a rascist (not necessarily talking about visible minorities either, so the usuals who jump all over me for my comments can chill out)....I respectfully disagree with this comment.

LC

Fair enough, I think I get your point. And yes, there are exceptions to generalizations, that's a given.

[Eddy62]

As far as I can tell, the people who fish the most, and catch the most, follow the reg's the most closely.

I totally agree on that statement. No Doubt. would i like to see a slot limit? Yes i would and would i be willing to pay an extra 20 dollars per year to help out are fisheries? Yes in a heartbeat.

I bought 2 out off province license this year and it was pricey. and then tags on top off licencing fees.Albertas licencing fees are pretty reasonable if you ask me.

Are fishing resources here in are province need help.I would like a survey page to be included in are fishing regs that we could tear out and mail back ( every year )with are opinions and suggestions off slot limits.increasing fees,c and r.barbless,and many more questions and suggestions, ask away and let us fisherman/woman answer some . give us the right to be part off the over all decision. just my opinion.....later

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by parnavi

As far as I can tell, the people who fish the most, and catch the most, follow the reg's the most closely.

I totally agree on that statement. No Doubt. would i like to see a slot limit? Yes i would and would i be willing to pay an extra 20 dollars per year to help out are fisheries? Yes in a heartbeat.

I bought 2 out off province license this year and it was pricey. and then tags on top off licencing fees.Albertas licencing fees are pretty reasonable if you ask me.

Are fishing resources here in are province need help.I would like a survey page to be included in are fishing regs that we could tear out and mail back ( every year )with are opinions and suggestions off slot limits.increasing fees,c and r.barbless,and many more questions and suggestions, ask away and let us fisherman/woman answer some . give us the right to be part off the over all decision. just my opinion.....later

Great ideas. A machine readable survey would be a good way to go.

I don't particularly like the idea of increasing fees. Maybe tax-refundable donations and a free decal for those that are willing. I can't stand the licensing cost in BC. It drives me nuts. I was stoked when I came to Alberta the first time and found the cost to be reasonable.

I can recall fishing on the NW coast with several hundred $$ worth of licenses and tags and realizing that I still wasn't legal.

Slot-limits are awesome.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by slivers86

I agree as well. Mind you, if we are all willing to pay an extra 10-20$ for our license, at lets say 150000 licenses across the province, thats 2.25M. Average sallary of a Peace Officer for SRD I'd estimate is around $65000-$75000 per year.

according to my calculations, that could employ roughly 25 new officers for per season, with around 150000 in a pool to cover benefits, pension, etc for the company. If this were proposed, would everyone go for it? I know 25 officers isn't a lot, however its a start in the right direction.

Think about the criminal code, if there wasn't a police presence, would that book of rules mean anything? I think people see the fishing regulations the same way, and don't ever see anyone around checking licenses, barbless hooks, baiting, etc. I was probably out close to 20-30 times this year, and was checked up on 3 times. 10% isn't bad, and keeps it under harassment levels.

What I'm getting at thought, is enforcement is possible of a 'slot limit' approach, if we are willing to pay for it though? I know I would pay an extra 20$ a year.

There are 11 vacancies to be filled right now and the number of licenses this year is approx 225,000,,, when vacancies can't be filled it becomes easier to negotiate a higher wage or benefit package.

And the random checking of fish size on your stringer is just the same as it is now, as it's just a few numbers between two numbers as opposed to making sure it's above 1 number on a tape measure.

And I don't target Walleye either,,, but I'd love to see a slot size for pike, they are in serious decline,,, and I'd love to see winter closures on some put & take trout lakes and then a slot or limit change but that argument will be saved for the thread that must not be named.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by WayneChristie

Im surprised with all the walleye addicts in Alberta, the groups and individuals havent gotten together to raise funds to pay for a stocking program

just need to rename them walleyed trout