Proposed Regulation Changes For Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes

[goldscud]

One thing to consider concerning the littoral zone and productivity in these reservoirs is that there is a large Mysis shrimp population. Once the juvenile Bulls and rainbows migrate to the Lower lake from the creek, their growth rate rapidly increases. I believe the juvs are about 6" at 3 years of age and then they start rapidly growing in the lake. Stomach contents that I saw from Bull trout in the Lower lake were almost totally shrimp. Once the fish get bigger they can add sucker minnows to their diet.
There has been a request to stabilize water levels for a long time. I'm not sure it is a priority for the power company. A stable littoral zone would surely help, but the Mysis shrimp add a ton of fat/protein to the equation.

[smitty9]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Tosh...the facts have been posted.

Fact...Catch rates from Kananaskis Lakes for instance. It shows 94% of all trout stocked get harvested in the year they are stocked. That is at 12 inches. That means instant depletion of the resource upon initial stocking.

Fact...it will work...the size classes in the lake now show great growth

Fact...the exact same regulation for Bullshead Lake was a massive success. All negative opinions were shot down by the successful outcome of this first Quality Fishery at Bullshead.

Fact...there is nothing...no proof...no examples nothing that has been said to show there is any harm to families. To me that is purely an inflammatory comment without merit. Not even sure where your logic is on that. I know the rhetoric keeps jumping back to wanting to catch fish...but again... the facts show the implementation of a quality fishery will improve this versus leaving it the same mess it is currently in. Nobody likes fishing towards the middle to the end of the season cause most trout were already caught.

Fact...this is actually a cost effective method to let mother nature grow trout while keeping tons of trout available to be caught. Upon mother nature (versus tax payer supported hatcheries feeding trout) growing 20 inch trout...these significantly larger fish will provide superior table fare to anyone wishing to harvest one.

Fact...there is no cost increase to regulate. It is just a regulation...nothing more...nothing less. It will be managed just like catch limits, size limits, bait restrictions etc.

Fact...one nice 20 + inch rainbow is significantly larger in weight to 3 - 12 inch stocked rainbows.

Fact...Alberta Fisheries biologists are involved and they are the educated and experienced ones that will affirm this makes sense prior to implementation. Nothing we demand will make it happen. We are not a strong enough nor vocal enough political power block for any politician to care.

Fact...the reason why this is happening for Kananaskis Lakes is for the same simple reason it happened at Bullshead. Some very hard working fishermen like yourselves saw a place to make a change for the better and have started to work hard to try and make the change happen. Your interest in other areas is admirable. I would strongly suggest YOU take the initiative and try and gather support and interest to do something about it. I would suggest talking first to other fishermen to see what the level of support is to ensure it is a common sense and well thought out idea...then approach F&W and ask for feedback and suggestions. Then start doing the hard work. Many people don't realize how much volunteer work and mental and physical effort it is to try and make a difference. These "proactive" folks should be commended!

Cheers

Sun

Hey Sun:

All great points. Full stop.

Never underestimate the capacity for people to dig their heels in and stuff their hands into their ears, refusing to listen to anything reasonable.

To your points I'll add:
1. There was indeed a proposal to stabilize the lakes because I had heard that the power company was going to decommission the plant. Can you imagine the double win benefit of having those lakes' productivity cranked up PLUS a viable trout fishery in the Kananaskis river.

2. I think some of the "anti's" here have lost sight of a huge point - POTENTIAL. These lakes are not the size of a couple of farm dugouts; they are one of AB's biggest trout stillwaters, have the capacity to grow 10+ lb trout, and yet, some of the angling community just want these massive lakes to produce 5 a day limits of 12" stockers. Its like asking Sidney Crosby to play in the East Coast League; what a waste!

3. Here's a contoversial point; I'd argue kids and older folks and disabled anglers are just as much of a special interest group as the flyfishing or special regs community. Read that carefully; its actually a neutral statement. I am for MORE accessible waters to those aformentioned groups, just think that the K-lakes can serve everyone.

4. An argument for meat is a complete epic fail on the logic side of things. Takes my breath away. Go to Safeway. We fish because its enjoyable. Those that fish purely 100% for food, well, whatever, that's bloody expensive meat! I'm not against catch and keep, in fact I've ****ed off more than few flyfishers on other forums defending put and take fisheries, but again, I repeat, its a massive waste of potential. Plus, the nail in the coffin, its not lake these regs are proposing to ban harvest - just delay it.

5. I'll also argue citing the example of Bullshead that having such a productive fishery in such beautiful country so close to Calgary gives people options and will increase the usuage, and take the pressure off hard hit rivers, other smaller lakes, and even other delayed harvest fisheries like Bullshead.

6. Some thoughtful people here, especially that one previous poster, completely nailed it when he said the adults would be the problem, not the kids. I have taught lots of kids to flyfish from day 1, no bait, and they have loved it. And not one of them has ever had a problem with catch and release.


Anyways, I am signing the petition, but it should also have a parallel petition for the company asking them to stabilize the lake levels and to leave the Kananaskis river alone. (Perhaps a project for me).

Smitty

[spinerfisher]

Originally Posted by Tosh

i am apologize i dont know what i am talking about.... if your kids want bigger but fewer fish then they should get them (my kids can go somewhere else). and poaching is my fault cause i try to teach people but i aint gonna follow him to his car get his plate number drive to get cell reception and call in the middle of my day cause they cant afford to hire enough people. and there are lots of good quality places to fish in this province and if you cant find any then i guess its your problem. leave family places alone.... lmfao

buddy you need to get a life!!!:

You probably are a poacher yourself, disgusting people!!

[Woolly Bugger]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

There were a lot of guys that thought the same thing as you when the Bullshead regulation change was proposed.

One thing you have to take into account is that a 12 inch rainbow has far less meat than a 22 inch rainbow. A 22 inch rainbow probably has more meat than 5 - 12 inch rainbows or more. So I would like you to consider these points such once the fish sizes catch up to the regulations that you will benefit 2 fold. Firstly you will get to keep one large rainbow that will feed a family...secondly you will have a lot more fun fighting a larger size class of trout.

Quality fishery does not mean catch and release fishery. It just means when you catch a fish it is big enough to give you a fight.

I would also say that the times are gone when you could justify the time to fish and buy gas versus the pounds of fish returned home. There are just too many people in Alberta fishing and to be fair to your fellow anglers...the resource can not justify everyone keeping their limits every time they go out. You seem to be dissing the catch and release folks...but if not for them, your personal limits would probably drop to 10% of where they are at now. So remember IMHO...as a fishing community, we are all working together to make this a great "recreational" activity...and not purely a grocery shopping trip.

Cheers

Sun

Well said Sun.

[Woolly Bugger]

Signed.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by pikester

Probably going to sign but still have some interest in a response to the question of water level fluctuation affecting the productivity of the littoral zone. How much of a limiting factor to the overall potential of the fishery is there or will there be based on this situation? Surely it would have a tremendous influence on the total carrying capacity of a trophy sized population of fish.

Also to sidetrack a little more from the OP, has anyone discussed the possibity of stocking Bulls in Elbow to whittle down the brookie population a little while offering another opportunity at a quality Bull trout fishery in an easily accessible & super scenic location?

Hi pikester...

I was away and did not post but I see goldscud beat me to it. The growth rates are good in this lake and that should not change. Catch rates will increase due to delayed harvest...so yearly stocking rates need not be as high. Mysis shrimp are a great growth food. It is amazing that even with high water fluctuations that there is significant food to grow trout big. Once we get this going we have no wheres else to go but growing bigger and bigger trout in a fabulous location.

Sun

[gl2]

Originally Posted by spinerfisher

buddy you need to get a life!!!:

You probably are a poacher yourself, disgusting people!!

post edited...good point gary.

Spinerfisher, thank you for your informative post.

[GaryF]

Can we keep this to the topic at hand pls, take it to PM's if you need to. Lots of great information here, would hate to see it locked out and forgotten.

[pikester]

Originally Posted by goldscud

One thing to consider concerning the littoral zone and productivity in these reservoirs is that there is a large Mysis shrimp population. Once the juvenile Bulls and rainbows migrate to the Lower lake from the creek, their growth rate rapidly increases. I believe the juvs are about 6" at 3 years of age and then they start rapidly growing in the lake. Stomach contents that I saw from Bull trout in the Lower lake were almost totally shrimp. Once the fish get bigger they can add sucker minnows to their diet.
There has been a request to stabilize water levels for a long time. I'm not sure it is a priority for the power company. A stable littoral zone would surely help, but the Mysis shrimp add a ton of fat/protein to the equation.

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Hi pikester...

I was away and did not post but I see goldscud beat me to it. The growth rates are good in this lake and that should not change. Catch rates will increase due to delayed harvest...so yearly stocking rates need not be as high. Mysis shrimp are a great growth food. It is amazing that even with high water fluctuations that there is significant food to grow trout big. Once we get this going we have no wheres else to go but growing bigger and bigger trout in a fabulous location.

Sun

Thanks for the info guys, I wasnt aware of the high shrimp population & how important it was to the fish in those lakes!

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by pikester

Thanks for the info guys, I wasnt aware of the high shrimp population & how important it was to the fish in those lakes!

http://www.simplydiscus.com/library/..._shrimps.shtml

As the trout grow bigger...they target the shrimp more and more. At the stocking target size class...they should effectively start predating on the shrimp.

As the shrimp are already established...and they are introduced...increasing the predation on them is not a bad thing at all. Kind of a win/win in this instance.

[chubbdarter]

that tiny little shrimp nearly killed my favorite lake in the world. i trust all the appropriate studies have been done. im just saying

[goldscud]

Yes Chubdarter, it is a shame that the Mysis introduction into Kootenay lake caused such a problem for the Kokanee population. It seems man tends to cause more problems than benefits when doing species introductions.
Mysis were added to the Kananaskis lakes in 1967 (I believe they actually got them from Kootenay lake). Unlike the Kokanee, the bulls and rainbows in Lower Kan lake seem to be making good use of the these shrimp. Stomach samples of trout show a very high percentage of Mysis shrimp.
Kootenay lake Mysis shrimp came from Waterton. Interesting how these shrimp have been moved around. They were then transplanted from Upper Kan into Spray lake as well.
It's too bad the competition for resources by the Kokanee and Mysis wasn't discovered until it was too lake. Hopefully your beloved Gerrards will respond to the fertilization programs being used to boost the Kokanee populations.

[chubbdarter]

it was a indirect cause and effect
the mysis in simple terms ate the lake of all plankton and micro organism which sterilized the lake.
the koot has since recovered nicely from that issue and the exporting of eggs from lardeau

[Tony_S]

Signed. Great Idea!

[Sundancefisher]

Great Tony!

One signature at a time and together we can make our fishery IN ALBERTA better. Kind of exciting.

Once this works hopefully other members on the board will have new excellent ideas to improve our fisheries.

Let's not accept the status quo but rather think big...think quality fishery with lots of fish to catch all year long.

Cheers

Sun

[Heron]

bump 128? Perhaps this thread should be pinned.

I fully support this and would support a complete shift accross the province for more of these fisheries.

One day I sat down with Barry`s mag and tried to count the trout fisheries that I could reasonably (or unreasonably) drive to in a day from Sherwood Park. The number was roughly 35. 1 or perhaps 2 of those have special regs. To me that is ridiculous. The area just west of Edmonton is a good example. Spring, Star, Chickakoo, Sauer, East Pit, what use to be Hasse, Eden and of course Muir are all within a fairly short drive of each other. Why is only 1 of these special regs?

P.S. I don`t see very many children and elderly at these waters and in my opinion you would see more grandparents with there grandchildren at higher quality fisheries. Wouldn`t that be a nice thing.

[ULTRAlite]

Signed - Full support for creating quality fisheries!

[Tungsten,]

Signed, only 137,as i type this theres 671 users online.Come on people,parents and grand parents.

There not asking for much here just a simple regulation change.If not for you then do it for your kids.

[Sundancefisher]

I have had a number of PM's that state they love the new reg idea but since they don't fish there they don't feel they should vote.

To all of you I say...VOTE! If this fishery improves as much as Bullshead...then I doubt you will be able to stay away. You will fish it and you will get great value for your time in fishing in a beautiful location with a significantly higher chance of catching fish.

So by all means...don't delay!

Sign...sign...sign!

Cheers

Sun

[Sundancefisher]

bump...

154 signatures... Keep it up folks and we can finally say we can function as a lobby group!

Sun

[aulrich]

159.

Pesonally I am not a big fan of minimum only size limits, I have seen too many lunkers not make it to the taxidermist. I rather see a slot limit to protect the real big ones too.

I love stocked trout to go to a tag system as well 2$ a tag 10 for the year. I could see that for any fish to tell you the truth. Though I am of the beleif that pure C&R will not always produce the biggest fish, but that depends on the water.

[HunterDave]

I'll be the first to admit that I know very little about this subject and I haven't taken the time to read through the entire thread yet.

I'm from out east where there is an unwritten rule that you release the big spawner fish and keep the smaller eating sized ones if you want a meal. Why only keep the big spawners. To me it seems a little counter-productive and I don't understand the logic behind it.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a maximum size limit that you can keep? If you catch a big one then take a picture of it if you need to but let it go so it can spawn a thousand more trout to catch. To me, these aren't the size of fish that you want to be taking out of a lake if you want to have a healthy population of fish in it. If everyone did that then there would always be large fish in the lake and plenty of eater size for the folks that don't think that size matters. Plenty of fish would live long enough to grow to the maximum size and keep the cycle going.

Is my logic flawed and what am I missing here?

[Heron]

I am not likely to fish this lake at all but I think it is a step toward getting more special regulation fisheries.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

I'll be the first to admit that I know very little about this subject and I haven't taken the time to read through the entire thread yet.

I'm from out east where there is an unwritten rule that you release the big spawner fish and keep the smaller eating sized ones if you want a meal. Why only keep the big spawners. To me it seems a little counter-productive and I don't understand the logic behind it.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a maximum size limit that you can keep? If you catch a big one then take a picture of it if you need to but let it go so it can spawn a thousand more trout to catch. To me, these aren't the size of fish that you want to be taking out of a lake if you want to have a healthy population of fish in it. If everyone did that then there would always be large fish in the lake and plenty of eater size for the folks that don't think that size matters. Plenty of fish would live long enough to grow to the maximum size and keep the cycle going.

Is my logic flawed and what am I missing here?

I think your logic is sound but not necessarily applicable to a put and take lake like this. While there is some spawning currently and an expectation of future spawning...it would not be significant enough IMHO for stock replacement. Therefore any natural spawning would only help to offset some stocking costs. So in this particular lake we are not trying to protect a natural spawning population nor is the regulations designed to create a trophy lake. There regulations are basically designed to prevent 94% of the 12 inch stocked rainbows to be harvested soon after stocking. If they are allowed to grow...and be caught for a few years after stocking...until they reach 20 inches...then when harvested they are of a significant size while the lake retains an ample number of trout to catch all season.

Think of this lake as a place to take the kids to almost guarantee they can catch something...whether they have to put it back or not based upon the 20 inch rule. While no guarantees to catch a fish...you are guaranteed that all fish have not been harvested shortly after stocking.

Plus the recreational advantage of having more and larger fish makes for an exciting day on the water when they are biting!

Cheers

Sun

Link to the petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/dekkbeed/petition.html

[HunterDave]

I'm still not sure that I understand the logic. There seems to be a different perception of what a quality fishery means. The supporters of this petition interpret it as being able to catch bigger fish while people opposed to it see it as being able to go out and catch fish.

From a hunter's perspective, wouldn't putting size restrictions for fish in the lake be similar to to putting a size restriction on whitetail bucks in a particular wmu? Let's say in wmu xxx a petition was started to limit the size of a buck that you could shoot to a 4x4 or bigger only. The smaller bucks would make it through the season to grow larger antlers and hunters in that wmu would have a better chance to shoot bigger bucks. But what about the people that don't care about the antler size and only want to put some meat in the freezer to eat? Would something like that be beneficial to all Alberta hunters or just the trophy hunters?

The biggest difference between the two that I know is that the smaller bucks can still breed the does while only the bigger trout can spawn.

Right now, based on what I've read and understand about the petition, I won't sign it. It may be something that would benefit a minority of trophy fishermen but not the majority of Alberta anglers.

[Okotokian]

I mistakenly put this on probably the wrong thread before. Should have been here:

"Disagree with the petition. Trophy hunters should try less accessable lakes, or have regulations changed for those less accessable lakes. Why would you want to restrict fishing opportunities in those lakes that are heavily used and easily accessable? Let the campers and families and tourists have their crack at some fish there. It's like cutting back fishing opportunities and restricting fishing seasons to grow giants in the Glenmore reservoir. Just the wrong body of water to do it on. "

Also, wondering if the up and down nature of the lake levels have been taken into consideration. Would as many of those giants actually develop as you seem to think?

Thanks

[Heron]

For me there is a substantial difference between the quality of the recreation in catching a 6" trout that weighs a couple of ounces to even a 16" fish that may weigh a pound or pound and a half. I am not talking about trophies. The reproduction thing is not really an issue as ther are very few lakes in Alberta where true trout can spawn. Quality is an opinion but limiting out on 10" fish is not very good quality. Not very good eating either. A young deer certainly is good eating.

[FOTW]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I mistakenly put this on probably the wrong thread before. Should have been here:

"Disagree with the petition. Trophy hunters should try less accessable lakes, or have regulations changed for those less accessable lakes. Why would you want to restrict fishing opportunities in those lakes that are heavily used and easily accessable? Let the campers and families and tourists have their crack at some fish there. It's like cutting back fishing opportunities and restricting fishing seasons to grow giants in the Glenmore reservoir. Just the wrong body of water to do it on. "

Also, wondering if the up and down nature of the lake levels have been taken into consideration. Would as many of those giants actually develop as you seem to think?

Thanks

Nothing is being cut back, The rule change would just mean you can not take a fish home.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

I'm still not sure that I understand the logic. There seems to be a different perception of what a quality fishery means. The supporters of this petition interpret it as being able to catch bigger fish while people opposed to it see it as being able to go out and catch fish.

From a hunter's perspective, wouldn't putting size restrictions for fish in the lake be similar to to putting a size restriction on whitetail bucks in a particular wmu? Let's say in wmu xxx a petition was started to limit the size of a buck that you could shoot to a 4x4 or bigger only. The smaller bucks would make it through the season to grow larger antlers and hunters in that wmu would have a better chance to shoot bigger bucks. But what about the people that don't care about the antler size and only want to put some meat in the freezer to eat? Would something like that be beneficial to all Alberta hunters or just the trophy hunters?

The biggest difference between the two that I know is that the smaller bucks can still breed the does while only the bigger trout can spawn.

Right now, based on what I've read and understand about the petition, I won't sign it. It may be something that would benefit a minority of trophy fishermen but not the majority of Alberta anglers.

The trophy fishing argument has been discussed in an earlier thread and addressed quite a few times. A 20 inch rainbow is not a trophy but about 5-6 times larger in weight than a 12 inch rainbow. As funds are not unlimited in F&W... stocking 12 inch rainbows and then pulling them out immediately is expensive freezer stocking. Letting mother nature grow them for free makes more sense.

I always find transfering hunting analogy to fishing difficult. You can't randomly shoot deer in a very limited population and then release them to grow bigger. Generally in hunting...the majority of hunters want to shoot the biggest and best that their tag will give them. While sometimes you are drawn for a doe in a small area and are happy with any meat...that same hunter realistically probably wants a buck twice as big if given an option.

This lake is providing similar ideology of providing the best bang for your buck...both in taxes and in time spent fishing.

If you could only hunt in October...but all the deer released from the deer hatchery were killed by July of that year...you would not be a happy hunter.

Now lets say that you could not shoot that deer until it was 4 years old...and it had grown to 5 times as big as when they were first stocked...and you had a fighting chance to find one...how is that bad? I call that recreationally sporting.

I guess your comment "But what about the people that don't care about the antler size and only want to put some meat in the freezer to eat?" Without this new regulation...chances are the opportunity to catch anything let alone meat on the table drops significantly as the stocked fish get depleted. This is not a stocked trout shooting gallery 24/7 all year long. This is currently a fishery of diminishing returns. I would rather go out at any time of the year and catch 20 trout and not see a 20 incher and then hit a stretch of catching a 20 incher than going out and seeing no fish at all...

Therefore to balance off the cost to stock, chance of successfully catching any fish, chance of catching something to eat...this regulation meets all the requirements of all interested parties. No one is selectively losing. Everyone is winning. This is a win/win scenario.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I mistakenly put this on probably the wrong thread before. Should have been here:

"Disagree with the petition. Trophy hunters should try less accessable lakes, or have regulations changed for those less accessable lakes. Why would you want to restrict fishing opportunities in those lakes that are heavily used and easily accessable? Let the campers and families and tourists have their crack at some fish there. It's like cutting back fishing opportunities and restricting fishing seasons to grow giants in the Glenmore reservoir. Just the wrong body of water to do it on. "

Also, wondering if the up and down nature of the lake levels have been taken into consideration. Would as many of those giants actually develop as you seem to think?

Thanks

Please read the posts regarding this being called a trophy fishery. Fact is once the trout grow on mother nature's dime to 20 inches they can then be harvested and they do. I don't think a lot of trout grow past 22 inches in Bullshead at least anywheres near where people fish. Many people harvest them and love em cause they are 5-6 times bigger than a 12 inch rainbow.

Therefore I disagree with you calling a 20 inch rainbow a "trophy fishery" or even a giant...if we made this a 30 inch minimum size...then I would have to agree with you insofar as rainbows grow in Alberta. 20 inch rainbows are common in the bow...a 26-30 inch rainbow is considered big...and probably trophy in the Bow.

Your comment "Let the campers and families and tourists have their crack at some fish there." is all fine except in stocked lakes they get fished hard and fast at the beginning and the stocked 12 inch rainbows get depleted fast. 94% of the stocked rainbows are gone each year. Therefore there are very few trout left for any successful fishing adventure later on in the season. If you truly believe this statement of yours then that is the principle reason why you SHOULD sign the petition. Then there will be ample trout for tourists and campers to catch...and when they catch one over 20 inches they can harvest if they so chose. As each year class grows through the system...they will become available for harvest...and you know they will get harvested. But in the meanwhile until they reach 20 inches they will be catchable and loads of fun for tourists, campers, grandpas, grandmas, sons and daughters etc.!

Cheers

Sun