Poll on Proposed Fishing Regulation Changes for Kananakis Lakes

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by GaryF

This was pulled off of one of the SRD round table meeting miutes,

Provincial Policy on Delayed Harvest
�� Of the 293 lakes stocked with trout, there are only 4 or 5 lakes that have delayed-harvest regulations. There have been some successes on small lakes (e.g. Bullshead, Muir, Ironside, Beaver)
�� On these sites it was the responsibility of the sponsor group to develop but SRD should take on the role of developing delayed harvest fisheries.
�� The government should identity where there are significant numbers of anglers that want this type of management. The number of lakes managed for delayed harvest should reflect the interest of the regional and local anglers and be strategically placed throughout the province.


So with that info, why would adding 2 more to the list of regulated lakes hurt? There would still be 286 other stocked lakes throughout the province to harvest any fish from.

Hunterdave, I also look forward to seeing your top 10 list of why this is a bad idea. Sun provided his top ten for why it is good, and its been disected by you. I would like to see your list so I can do the same. There have been a few of my posts that I have made that I awaited a response on from, that you and other vocal opponents on this thread have chosen to not comment on for whatever reason. I too can poke holes in everything, so I patiently await your list.

I was hoping he would respond also. Quick to judge...slow to give his factual reasons why this should not be done.

Funny how something that makes common sense is a weak assumption in some posters eyes.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Yes, but will it contain anything noteworthy.

chubdarter...HunterDave...

Please can we attack the topic and not the person. It would be a shame if we lost the focus of the debate and the Mods shut it down. I enjoy both your posts for various reasons when they stay on topic. If you have run out of points to make...I have no problem stepping back unless from our debate unless some else has any questions.

I believe there is enough back on forth on the same points that people can read the arguments and decide what seems a reasonable thought process to agree to try or not try the proposal.

Steelhead...the data for stocking rates is here...

BC stocks 8 million fish into 900 rivers/lakes.
SRD stocked 242 lakes, potholes, and steams last year with over 20 million fish.

About $100 MM in licencing fees in Alberta and $400 - 500 for BC. How would you envision spending more to produce more stocking to feed the demand? Increased fees?

There are 3.7 MM people in Alberta. There is about 4.5 MM people in BC. I suspect there is a higher percentage of fishermen in BC...but maybe not.

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

chubdarter...HunterDave...

Please can we attack the topic and not the person. It would be a shame if we lost the focus of the debate and the Mods shut it down. I enjoy both your posts for various reasons when they stay on topic. If you have run out of points to make...I have no problem stepping back unless from our debate unless some else has any questions.

I believe there is enough back on forth on the same points that people can read the arguments and decide what seems a reasonable thought process to agree to try or not try the proposal.

Steelhead...the data for stocking rates is here...

BC stocks 8 million fish into 900 rivers/lakes.
SRD stocked 242 lakes, potholes, and steams last year with over 20 million fish.

About $100 MM in licencing fees in Alberta and $400 - 500 for BC. How would you envision spending more to produce more stocking to feed the demand? Increased fees?

There are 3.7 MM people in Alberta. There is about 4.5 MM people in BC. I suspect there is a higher percentage of fishermen in BC...but maybe not.

i have only returned fire after you have fired upon me first......back read.
i realize you probably have connections to admin so your hint is well taken.
i will leave this discussion with respect to the forum.
have a great fishing season. i wish you the very best.
cd

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by trainerdave

Caught 2 bullies one day two summers ago in Chain lakes. none since.far fewer suckers there now but it appears they are on the rise again so perhaps they could stock a few Bulls again...Back to Kananaskis...it would be nice to not have to drive in to the kootenays to catch a decent trout-most people probably feel the same by the looks of the poll so far...D.

I remember catching 10 suckers for every trout if you bait was anywheres near the bottom. I always set the Cubs up to fish 4 feet off bottom. Changed the ratio significantly to 5 trout for every sucker. Still it was a great place to go to readily catch tons of 10 inch rainbows.

I wonder if F&W ever checked to see if the bullies found a place to spawn in the upper Willow.

[steelhead]

Top 10 reasons why its a bad idea.


1. Protected specie in lake (bulls). Possible miss-identification of species causing harm to protected fish.

2. Small percentage of park users are anglers. With so many quality fisheries existing, rise in angling on lake will show no marketable rise.

3. This lake has show to already be a quality fishery. Bulls can be caught with great regularity and well over the Quality size.

4. Flawed and out of date catch data the base of reasons why this is a good choice for a quality lake. Proper and in depth yearly research for a number of years before quality fishery should be designated.

5. Depths of species in summer months are generally too deep for shore anglers to have advertized higher catch rates. Thats the nature of those 2 species.

6. Downstream migration of fish possible and will result in a loss of fish. All other choices for quality fisheries are closed systems.

7. Forage base for the larger fish this lake will produce is comprimised due to fluctuating water levels. If over population of large fish occurs, leaner less healthy fish.

8. Stocking of cutts in a system containing Bulls. You are stocking the top of the list, main prey of bulltrout. Bull trout will feed on newly stocked and lake stupid fish. Great potential for loss of stocked fish.

9. Because of the distance from border crossings into BC and Sask., and the small populations in these other provinces close to these crossings, potential for out of province visitors to use this resource is slim to nil. Many quality fisheries close to these crossings to accomodate out of provincers.

10. Quality lakes were and are made to fit where no oppourtunities existed in the past and in closed systems. (bullshead-med hat, muir-edmonton,) This site is surrounded by many quality fisheries already. Not much of a draw for visitors when other places exist with less visitors to encounter on an outing.



And SUN's top 10 again.......


1. Increased catch rates
2. Increased economic benefits
3. Creation of a quality fishery near a major urban area
4. Increased usage will improve enforcement through extra eyes
5. Delayed harvest means more stable fishing
6. Increased fish sizes
7. Lake meets suitability for quality fishery
8. Stocking of native cutties will compliment ecosystem
9. Increased tourism and park usage
10.Increased usage for fishing will highlight the benefits to the government





I could have come up with 10 better reasons than that (in fact, I also made up 10 better reasons why its a good thing just for kicks). Lots of opinion and no research in your top 10. Your job is to convince me and the rest of the John Q Public why its a great thing, and that 10 list gets a failing grade.


I still dont agree with this proposal.


STEELHEAD

[Heron]

Thanks to GaryF, smitty9 and of course Sun for your efforts and common sense. I have a few thoughts...

I’ll add an11th point about why it would be good. Its success will serve as another badly needed example of what works and why we need way more of these special reg. lakes.

I think there is some validity to the fact that a high quality lake near a million people would draw more people and their associated problems. I know this because Muir which is a success, is a different kind of fishing experience due to the volume of people that fish there. That is why there needs to be WAY more delayed harvest waters. 293 stocked waters and 4 or 5 with delayed harvest is a joke. I would support 1/3 of all stocked waters going immediately to a delayed harvest. Since I am dreaming here and get to make up the rules lets start by making most of these delay harvest lakes at 16” retention and perhaps 10 lakes at 20” retention. Not very far down the road that will put a lot more fish of decent eating size in frying pans. That still leaves 198 lakes for the people who like to eat 9” fish. As acceptance and realization sets in, that could be changed later. How would this get enforced? More enforcement from dollars saved on stocking, and civic duty. I believe most people will follow the laws because it is their civic duty. Ya lots will break the rules but so what. Dollars saved can also perhaps go to larger fish being stocked and more diverse stocking. Why do I have to go to Saskatchewan to catch a tiger trout? More triploids anyone? Am I nuts?

So to get this past just blabbering on the internet, what suggestions does anyone have for a person to get more involved?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Yes, but will it contain anything noteworthy.

chubdarter...HunterDave...

Please can we attack the topic and not the person. It would be a shame if we lost the focus of the debate and the Mods shut it down.

WOW Sundance! Your first post today was 8 hours ago and 2 hours later you post this? If you consider my comment above a personal attack on you then I suggest that you read it again. My comment was about the content of the list that I was waiting for you to post and not about you. Interesting interpretation though.

Since I know that you are a Mod I can read between the lines of your post.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by steelhead

Top 10 reasons why its a bad idea.


1. Protected specie in lake (bulls). Possible miss-identification of species causing harm to protected fish. So you are proposing to stop stocking all Cutties in the lakes and exterminating all rainbows trying to spawn...even though...cutties are natural to the system and evolved to co-exist with bulls? I Don't get it. It is just wrong. Your argument fails.

2. Small percentage of park users are anglers. With so many quality fisheries existing, rise in angling on lake will show no marketable rise. There are no quality fisheries around here... Closest are Bullshead and Police Outpost. Sorry... You are not computing based upon simple geography. Maybe you are just calling a 12 inch fishery quality as a play on words... I don't buy it and suggest being fair to the Quality Fishery terminology. A fishery with a 20 inch minimum size before harvest. The numbers of anglers will increase with better fishing. Other fisheries have shown that to be the case. You can disagree...but then you have no comparison to understand our point as you have not fished bullshead. Your argument fails.

3. This lake has show to already be a quality fishery. Bulls can be caught with great regularity and well over the Quality size. Kind of copied this from 2 above did you not...but let's call it a different number. Same answer as above. Your argument still fails.

4. Flawed and out of date catch data the base of reasons why this is a good choice for a quality lake. Proper and in depth yearly research for a number of years before quality fishery should be designated. You try and countradict trained, experienced and educated biologist. No body believes you are the best person to say what science is good or bad. The majority will believe the trained scientists and not you. Therefore your opinion on scientific data being credible or not is based solely from an uninformed lay person and holds little merit. Your argument fails.

5. Depths of species in summer months are generally too deep for shore anglers to have advertized higher catch rates. Thats the nature of those 2 species. This point does not make sense. What do you mean? People catch fish all year. Cutts feed closer to the surface. What data are you making up here? Your argument fails.

6. Downstream migration of fish possible and will result in a loss of fish. All other choices for quality fisheries are closed systems. Strange...this has been stocked repeatedly over the years with little to no escapement downstream. I have fished below the dam and...you should also. Then you will know from experience this is not the case. Plus stocking reservoirs occurs all over. There is no data to support mass escaping fish. Good try though but holds no weight as an argument. Your argument fails.

7. Forage base for the larger fish this lake will produce is comprimised due to fluctuating water levels. If over population of large fish occurs, leaner less healthy fish. Provincial biologist if they chose this as a quality fishery will study the stocking densities just like at Bullshead to optimize the fishery. The mysis provide ample food for growing larger trout. Implementing the new regulations and attracting more fishermen will put more pressure on the dam owners to better regulate the water levels for the recreational user. While this is already in the works...the more pressure the better. Your argument fails.

8. Stocking of cutts in a system containing Bulls. You are stocking the top of the list, main prey of bulltrout. Bull trout will feed on newly stocked and lake stupid fish. Great potential for loss of stocked fish. Nice to contradict yourself. First you say we are going to harm them... Then later on you say we will feed them. Please pick one bad argument and stick with it. The same basic principle holds true that cutties and bulls evolved together. Letting the cutts actually grow then contradicts your argument once again....bulls definitely can't eat larger cutties. Again...your argument outright fails.

9. Because of the distance from border crossings into BC and Sask., and the small populations in these other provinces close to these crossings, potential for out of province visitors to use this resource is slim to nil. Many quality fisheries close to these crossings to accomodate out of provincers. I am sorry. I was not aware of one of your principle reasons for not agreeing to improved fishing near Calgary was to protect BC and Saskatchewan's right to better fishing. I suspect most readers are trying to improve fishing for Albertans first. Spins off for tourism in the area is an added benefit. Making a better fishery will make for more tourism. But...saying you want to make a better fishery to get BC residents to drive to Alberta...this sounds more like a teaser argument than a serious one. Your argument fails.

10. Quality lakes were and are made to fit where no oppourtunities existed in the past and in closed systems. (bullshead-med hat, muir-edmonton,) This site is surrounded by many quality fisheries already. Not much of a draw for visitors when other places exist with less visitors to encounter on an outing. I am sorry...but maybe you do not understand the nature of the "quality fishery". All lakes in the Calgary area that are stocked have either no size limit or a 12 inch size limit. There are no lakes with a 20 inch minimum size limit. Sorry you missed that point near the beginning of the discussion threads. I attach the premise again below here for your reference. Plus this is the same as your No. 2 and 3. Your argument fails for the third time. STEELHEAD

From my calculation that is 10 fails... 0 pass. You should at least say the increase traffic issue...as that is going to happen with an improved fishery. I will add that for you and bump you to 1 pass.

This is fun...

Sun

Originally Posted by beedhead

Hi Fellow Anglers. A good friend and I attended the ASRD Round table meeting last week concerning regulation changes to The Kananaskis Lakes. It was a very informative meeting, and we had a lot of support. We have started a Petition (that can be signed on the link provided below) that proposes new regulations.


The current regulations for the Upper and Lower Kananaskis lakes are: "Open all year-Trout (except bull trout) limit 3; Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout over 30 cm; Bait Ban." We feel that these lakes have the potential to provide QUALITY FISHERIES, provided that the fish are allowed to live long enough. To that end, we are proposing that the following regulations be implemented, so as to permit QUALITY FISHERIES to develop: "Open all year-Trout (except bull trout) limit 1; Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout over 50 cm; Bait Ban."

Some of the issues we are faced with are that: Catchable-sized (20-30 cm) Cutthroat Trout are being stocked in both Kananaskis Lakes. Many stocked fish are being harvested shortly after stocking. Current size limit provides no protection for spawners. Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout can grow to a very large size (> 70 cm) and live to up to 11 years in the Kananaskis Lakes. For these reasons, we feel that Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes provide the best opportunity for creation of readily accessible QUALITY FISHERIES in the area west of Calgary. This initiative would support SRD's commitment to develop more quality stocked trout fisheries in Alberta, following a survey which showed strong angler support for the development of more quality stocked trout fisheries in Alberta.


It is unlikely that a 50-cm maximum size limit would work as well as the proposed 50-cm minimum size limit, since fishing pressure on the Kananaskis Lakes is great enough that most of the cutthroat/rainbow trout would be harvested before they reached 50 cm. As a result, it is unlikely that a 50-cm maximum size limit would greatly improve catch rates or fish size.

The proposed regulation is not strictly C&R, since it still allows anglers to harvest cutthroat/rainbow over 50 cm. All that is required is for harvest-oriented anglers to exercise some restraint for a few years, while the number and average size of fish increases in the lakes. In the mean time, anglers will be able to enjoy a fishery that improves as it develops into a QUALITY FISHERY, which is something that an increasing number of anglers have been requesting in recent years. For the area west of Calgary, Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes provide the best opportunity to create readily accessible QUALITY FISHERIES.

While the proposed 50-cm minimum size limit won't protect as many cutthroat/rainbow trout spawners as would a 60-cm minimum size limit or total C&R regulation, it will still protect more spawners than the current regulations. If, in the future, enough anglers wish to have the minimum size limit increased to further increase the average size of fish and quality of the fishery, this is something that can be done then.

Thank you so much for your time.

Jeff Wilson & Jake Gotta.

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


The New Proposed Regulations Poster.





Petition link

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

chubdarter...HunterDave...

Please can we attack the topic and not the person. It would be a shame if we lost the focus of the debate and the Mods shut it down.

WOW Sundance! Your first post today was 8 hours ago and 2 hours later you post this? If you consider my comment above a personal attack on you then I suggest that you read it again. My comment was about the content of the list that I was waiting for you to post and not about you. Interesting interpretation though.

Since I know that you are a Mod I can read between the lines of your post.

Please read the full context of the dialog leading up. Yes...you do start to swing it in a negative way...but still I am impressed we have all stayed pretty good. Probably a record of sorts for such a heated topic. I would just like to keep it that way.

And not sure why you think I am a Mod.

Cheers

Sun

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Heron

So to get this past just blabbering on the internet, what suggestions does anyone have for a person to get more involved?

Post #93

IMHO The only way that you guys are going to get anywhere with this proposal is to do your homework and present a case to support your position. I highly doubt that anyone is going to do it for you. If you could, through your local Fishing Club, convince an organization like AFGA (+/- 20K members) to support your proposal you would have a better chance of it going somewhere. But, to walk in to SRD and hand them a petition with 300 unverified names on it supporting a change to the regs in Kan Lakes based on, "Cuz it worked in Bullhead Reservoir", well, good luck with that.

'Nuff said.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Post #93

IMHO The only way that you guys are going to get anywhere with this proposal is to do your homework and present a case to support your position. I highly doubt that anyone is going to do it for you. If you could, through your local Fishing Club, convince an organization like AFGA (+/- 20K members) to support your proposal you would have a better chance of it going somewhere. But, to walk in to SRD and hand them a petition with 300 unverified names on it supporting a change to the regs in Kan Lakes based on, "Cuz it worked in Bullhead Reservoir", well, good luck with that.

'Nuff said.

I agree with HunterDave.

This is just an interesting forum to gauge and assess the publics opinion before someone takes it to the next step. I would contact the orginal poster that I quoted above to start and see what help they need now and in the future. If you have contacts at other Fishing Associations...it doesn't hurt to make them aware and start thinking about the topic and signing the petition...and HunterDave's most excellent poll.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

And not sure why you think I am a Mod.

My bad....I had you confused with lilsundance.

[steelhead]

Wow, after reading your responses to my top 10 list, i now feel you should not be the one spearheading this initiative. Epic fail.


I'm not against Quality fisheries. If this was to happen to Dewitts pond, Allan Bill or Crossfield, i would be all over it and sign a yes. But your choice of lakes and reasons are very weak.


Have fun with this Sun. Make us proud.



STEELHEAD

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

My bad....I had you confused with lilsundance.

LOL

Now you can stop going so easy on me.

just to confirm...we are also not related.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by steelhead

Wow, after reading your responses to my top 10 list, i now feel you should not be the one spearheading this initiative. Epic fail.


I'm not against Quality fisheries. If this was to happen to Dewitts pond, Allan Bill or Crossfield, i would be all over it and sign a yes. But your choice of lakes and reasons are very weak.


Have fun with this Sun. Make us proud.



STEELHEAD

Not me spearheading fortunately. Just very interested in the topic.

Allen Bill pond...these fisheries will not support a quality fishery due to the lake size IMHO. I have fished it many times. A very small food base as well.

Maybe the orginal poster or someone can enlighten us on the whole quality fishery guidelines.

There are some points here.
http://www.srd.alberta.ca/ManagingPr...t/Default.aspx

The question was asked by HunterDave I believe that what value does 260 names mean in the scope of all the fishermen in Alberta.

A big survey done on this very topic of quality fisheries is here. As I suspected and with all surveys...it is very hard to fight apathy. The fact so many that responded yes is excellent as usually the negatives can win in these races if the opposition is fierce.

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/ManagingPr...lts-Sep-08.pdf

Question: The Quality Stocked Trout Fisheries Program should be expanded?

376 respondents.

76.29% agreed to more quality fisheries.

Additional background information.

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/ManagingPr...Background.pdf

Sorry...no one posted this info before.

Sun

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by steelhead

I'm not against Quality fisheries. If this was to happen to Dewitts pond, Allan Bill or Crossfield, i would be all over it and sign a yes. But your choice of lakes and reasons are very weak.

x2 I can't comment on the bodies of water specifically mentioned however I am in total agreement with the rest of the statement.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

x2 I can't comment on the bodies of water specifically mentioned however I am in total agreement with the rest of the statement.

Did you find the number of respondents interesting on the wider survey. Just goes to show how hard it is to run a survey and fight past the apathy...and how in fact 265 names...with minimal Province wide advertising shows a fairly good response. You have to admit.

How about you list a wider range of lakes that fall within Calgary's general area and see where that leads. Maybe you have a better location that simply...someone missed or did not think of. Think about over wintering, food supply, location/distance from Calgary, access, size...etc.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Did you find the number of respondents interesting on the wider survey. Just goes to show how hard it is to run a survey and fight past the apathy...and how in fact 265 names...with minimal Province wide advertising shows a fairly good response. You have to admit.

How about you list a wider range of lakes that fall within Calgary's general area and see where that leads. Maybe you have a better location that simply...someone missed or did not think of. Think about over wintering, food supply, location/distance from Calgary, access, size...etc.

I didn't really find the number of respondents a surprise because "This draft paper was made available, on the My Wild Alberta website for public comment through the month of September 2008." Either you saw the post or you didn't. Had SRD conducted a campaign to gather as may respondents as possible, I'm sure that they would have received allot more input. For that reason I don't think that it was as much apathy about the survey as much as it being ignorance to it even being conducted.

Why would I want to research all of the bodies of water in the area of Calgary to determine which ones would be suitable for the type of fishery that you are endorsing? That's part of the beauty of not being on the side of a new proposal. It is up to the people proposing the change to convince people that their cause is just. If they can't and it goes to a vote then all that anyone has to do is vote no with no requirement for an explanation.

If you are saying that there are no other bodies of water other than Kan Lakes in the Calgary area suitable for this type of proposal then you should state that as one of your reasons for having it there.

[GaryF]

Top 10 reasons why its a bad idea.


1. Protected specie in lake (bulls). Possible miss-identification of species causing harm to protected fish. I agree this could be a problem, but since they exist already in the lakes as you state in item 3 the problem is neglegible if they are growing to well over the proposed size limit already. Large signs at the entrances to these lakes explaining what a bull trout is will help this.

2. Small percentage of park users are anglers. With so many quality fisheries existing, rise in angling on lake will show no marketable rise. Please tell me which lakes you are classifying as quality, and what your definition of quality is.

3. This lake has show to already be a quality fishery. Bulls can be caught with great regularity and well over the Quality size. Please refer to item 5 of your list. Can you catch fish regularily or not in K Lakes?

4. Flawed and out of date catch data the base of reasons why this is a good choice for a quality lake. Proper and in depth yearly research for a number of years before quality fishery should be designated. If this petition gets that started by showing the interest in making this a special regs lake, its a positive first step. They won't just make a change because of a petition, but it will ge the ball rolling.

5. Depths of species in summer months are generally too deep for shore anglers to have advertized higher catch rates. Thats the nature of those 2 species. See Item 3 in your list.

6. Downstream migration of fish possible and will result in a loss of fish. All other choices for quality fisheries are closed systems. Bullhead is a resevoir with and overflow spillway. You have stated it is a closed system, which it is not. So unfortunately this argument is not applicable here, as you seem to agree that bullshead is a quality fishery now.

7. Forage base for the larger fish this lake will produce is comprimised due to fluctuating water levels. If over population of large fish occurs, leaner less healthy fish. Is there a study of this somewhere that I can read so there is some backing up of this statement?

8. Stocking of cutts in a system containing Bulls. You are stocking the top of the list, main prey of bulltrout. Bull trout will feed on newly stocked and lake stupid fish. Great potential for loss of stocked fish. This is already being done. But you are insisting that K lakes is already a quality fishery as is with the current stocking and regulations, so you are contradicting yourself.

9. Because of the distance from border crossings into BC and Sask., and the small populations in these other provinces close to these crossings, potential for out of province visitors to use this resource is slim to nil. Many quality fisheries close to these crossings to accomodate out of provincers. As with my one post on that snippet from the SRD Meeting, the concern is for local and regional anglers, not visitors. I could care less if anyone from outside of AB comes to fish these lakes. Sure would be nice to not have to drive 4 hours from home tho to get to a quality fishery. and yes I have explained my view already on what one is to me.

10. Quality lakes were and are made to fit where no oppourtunities existed in the past and in closed systems. (bullshead-med hat, muir-edmonton,) This site is surrounded by many quality fisheries already. Not much of a draw for visitors when other places exist with less visitors to encounter on an outing. I refer back to my comments in items 2 and 9

Hunterdave, still waiting on your list pls. Everything you have asked for has been attempted to be given to you, so now in all fairness I still am waiting on your list.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by GaryF

Hunterdave, still waiting on your list pls. Everything you have asked for has been attempted to be given to you, so now in all fairness I still am waiting on your list.

Okay, give me a few minutes.

[chubbdarter]

Dave your wife called...she says intervention is on......lol...bahawabahawa

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

Dave your wife called...she says intervention is on......lol...bahawabahawa

I lived in Cardiff Echoes just outside Morinville. Not a rip roaring town. Give Dave a break. He is probably having more fun the whole rest of the town put together.

He has had 18 hours to build his list. It is going to blow us all away.

[HunterDave]

My Top Ten Reasons Why I do NOT support This Proposal:

1. I refuse to endorse anything that isn't well thought out and studied.
2. There has been nothing substantial presented by anyone endorsing this proposal that indicates to me that it is a good idea.
3. There has been no study of the lake to determine what the ramifications would be of having more large fish in it.
4. There has been no study done on the economic impact such a proposal would have on the tourist industry and local businesses in the Kan Lakes area.
5. No one has been consulted in the Kan Lakes area to get a clear indication of what the users of the area would want.
6. SRD has not been contacted to confirm whether or not there's a legitimate reason for the current regs to be in place as they are.
7. Possession rates will be slashed 66%.
8. Mortality rates of easy to catch smaller fish could potentially increase due to fish trauma associated with catch and release requirements.
9. It is a poor lesson in conservation to teach young anglers to keep large spawning sized fish and not smaller eating sized ones.
10.IMHO this point isn't required so I'll just throw it away...........plus I'm lazy.

[GaryF]

My Top Ten Reasons Why I do NOT support This Proposal:

1. I refuse to endorse anything that isn't well thought out and studied. Studies never get started without a petition such as this being presented to show interest in change. Waiting for the govt to do it by themselves will never work. Being pro-active in change to get these studies started is better than sitting back waiting.
2. There has been nothing substantial presented by anyone endorsing this proposal that indicates to me that it is a good idea. This is just a personal opinion of yours and does not add anything to any one individuals own decision.
3. There has been no study of the lake to determine what the ramifications would be of having more large fish in it. See my reply to item one.
4. There has been no study done on the economic impact such a proposal would have on the tourist industry and local businesses in the Kan Lakes area. See reply to item one, also having a high quality fishery will not keep ppl away, but bring them in. I have yet to meet anyone on the planet that fishes say "lots of fish to catch, I'm staying away from there"
5. No one has been consulted in the Kan Lakes area to get a clear indication of what the users of the area would want. Once again, item one.
6. SRD has not been contacted to confirm whether or not there's a legitimate reason for the current regs to be in place as they are. K lakes fall under the general guidlines of the stocking program. There is nothing special in the regs that aren't in place for other stocked lakes. But once again, having this petition brought forth will bring light to this area to get these answers.
7. Possession rates will be slashed 66%. Only on these 2 lakes leaving another 286 for ppl to harvest the daily limit of 5. PS BC's regs limit the daily catch to 2, 1, or none depending on the body of water, and only a possesion limit of twice your daily limit. Much better regs IMO and what we should have here in AB.
8. Mortality rates of easy to catch smaller fish could potentially increase due to fish trauma associated with catch and release requirements. Where can I find the study on these facts?
9. It is a poor lesson in conservation to teach young anglers to keep large spawning sized fish and not smaller eating sized ones. But its better to fish out the small ones so that they can't get to spawning size? Lots of fish become sexually mature prior to being 20" long, others become 20" long prior to sexaul maturity. Will dig up some biological text books for you to read on that.
10.IMHO this point isn't required so I'll just throw it away...........plus I'm lazy.


So far you have presented nothing in your top ten to inidcate why this petition and proposal is negative. Most of all of your list is personal feelings, not scientific data as you keep asking for. You are against the proposal based on numerous assumptions, but yet tell those of us for the proposal that we need scientific data to back us up. This proposal will hopefully put in motion these additional studies that you require. But once they are started/completed, your opinion will no longer matter as a decision will be made on those studies.

[steelhead]

Yer turn GaryF. Lets hear your top 10.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

My Top Ten Reasons Why I do NOT support This Proposal:

1. I refuse to endorse anything that isn't well thought out and studied.
2. There has been nothing substantial presented by anyone endorsing this proposal that indicates to me that it is a good idea.
3. There has been no study of the lake to determine what the ramifications would be of having more large fish in it.
4. There has been no study done on the economic impact such a proposal would have on the tourist industry and local businesses in the Kan Lakes area.
5. No one has been consulted in the Kan Lakes area to get a clear indication of what the users of the area would want.
6. SRD has not been contacted to confirm whether or not there's a legitimate reason for the current regs to be in place as they are.
7. Possession rates will be slashed 66%.
8. Mortality rates of easy to catch smaller fish could potentially increase due to fish trauma associated with catch and release requirements.
9. It is a poor lesson in conservation to teach young anglers to keep large spawning sized fish and not smaller eating sized ones.
10.IMHO this point isn't required so I'll just throw it away...........plus I'm lazy.

You could of just summarized with one...

Your point 10... I just don't understand or believe anything that has been talked about to date so I would rather just say no.

Which for all that is said...that summarizes the above...and I can live with that as your main or only concern. Some people are just scared of change or things that they can't fully understand. This is a big picture proposal.

The rest of us will hopefully consolidate our opinions to the point we believe it has merit and ask F&W to consider this and probably even address some if not all of your points above. Volunteers usually have neither the skills nor the time nor the education or science background to put together what you have asked in the detail you so desire. While some positive points may be common sense and easily accepted with some thought...let's see what people say and then in turn what feedback F&W gives the proposal. Not sure when that will occur.

You know that if you have a great idea at work and your boss wants you to study it to death...that nothing will ever get done. Sometimes you have to move it forward and see what happens. We benefit from the proof that this works elsewhere (Bullshead)...but...if this for some unexpected reason does not work...you can start a petition to reverse the regulations. :-)

This is a great idea for a readily accessible quality fishery near Calgary.

Cheers

Sun.

P.S. I could easily pick the rest of your points apart...but I will leave this to some else to have fun...for now.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by GaryF

My Top Ten Reasons Why I do NOT support This Proposal:

1. I refuse to endorse anything that isn't well thought out and studied. Studies never get started without a petition such as this being presented to show interest in change. Waiting for the govt to do it by themselves will never work. Being pro-active in change to get these studies started is better than sitting back waiting.
2. There has been nothing substantial presented by anyone endorsing this proposal that indicates to me that it is a good idea. This is just a personal opinion of yours and does not add anything to any one individuals own decision.
3. There has been no study of the lake to determine what the ramifications would be of having more large fish in it. See my reply to item one.
4. There has been no study done on the economic impact such a proposal would have on the tourist industry and local businesses in the Kan Lakes area. See reply to item one, also having a high quality fishery will not keep ppl away, but bring them in. I have yet to meet anyone on the planet that fishes say "lots of fish to catch, I'm staying away from there"
5. No one has been consulted in the Kan Lakes area to get a clear indication of what the users of the area would want. Once again, item one.
6. SRD has not been contacted to confirm whether or not there's a legitimate reason for the current regs to be in place as they are. K lakes fall under the general guidlines of the stocking program. There is nothing special in the regs that aren't in place for other stocked lakes. But once again, having this petition brought forth will bring light to this area to get these answers.
7. Possession rates will be slashed 66%. Only on these 2 lakes leaving another 286 for ppl to harvest the daily limit of 5. PS BC's regs limit the daily catch to 2, 1, or none depending on the body of water, and only a possesion limit of twice your daily limit. Much better regs IMO and what we should have here in AB.
8. Mortality rates of easy to catch smaller fish could potentially increase due to fish trauma associated with catch and release requirements. Where can I find the study on these facts?
9. It is a poor lesson in conservation to teach young anglers to keep large spawning sized fish and not smaller eating sized ones. But its better to fish out the small ones so that they can't get to spawning size? Lots of fish become sexually mature prior to being 20" long, others become 20" long prior to sexaul maturity. Will dig up some biological text books for you to read on that.
10.IMHO this point isn't required so I'll just throw it away...........plus I'm lazy.


So far you have presented nothing in your top ten to inidcate why this petition and proposal is negative. Most of all of your list is personal feelings, not scientific data as you keep asking for. You are against the proposal based on numerous assumptions, but yet tell those of us for the proposal that we need scientific data to back us up. This proposal will hopefully put in motion these additional studies that you require. But once they are started/completed, your opinion will no longer matter as a decision will be made on those studies.

Actually, every point on the list that I wrote was indeed a fact and none of it was an assumption or an opinion. That's the way that I roll.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

P.S. I could easily pick the rest of your points apart...but I will leave this to some else to have fun...for now.

No ya can't and that's why you didn't do it. Facts can't be argued with. Opinions can but facts cannot. At best, you could reply to the facts as "Yes, but.......".

C'mon! Bring it on.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Actually, every point on the list that I wrote was indeed a fact and none of it was an assumption or an opinion. That's the way that I roll.

ROTFLMAO...

I wish you were the Calgary Flames coach. We can use that kind of blind optimism on that team.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by GaryF

8. Mortality rates of easy to catch smaller fish could potentially increase due to fish trauma associated with catch and release requirements. Where can I find the study on these facts?

http://www.acuteangling.com/Reference/C&RMortality.html

Key Mortality Factors

Two factors predominate when considering the causes of angled fish mortality: the hooking location, and the degree of physiological stress suffered by the fish.

Hooking location - This factor demonstrates the largest source of variation in mortality observed in the studies and experiments reviewed. It is consistently shown that deep-hooking (hooking in the gills or gullet) causes relatively high mortality, up to 35% when accompanied by bleeding, whereas normal hooking (lips or jaw area) consistently causes minimal mortality, which is consistently less than 5% and often less than 1%. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources, in its Recreational Catch and Release Mortality research program concludes that the location of the hook wound is the single most important factor influencing catch and release mortality (4). If the hook wound affects a vital organ, mortality, is high. The location of the wound site has been demonstrated to be a function of hook size, type, the use of natural bait versus artificial lures and additional situational factors. Studies show that when fish are hooked in the lips or jaw area (shallow hooked), mortality is negligible, typically less than 1% (4,5). Conversely, mortality is at its highest when fish are hooked in the esophagus or gills (deep hooked) (5,11). Necropsies performed on gut hooked fish in a study by (5) Grover, et al, found that the majority had sustained major internal damage to the heart, stomach or liver. Grover demonstrates that hooking location effectively correlates to mortality rate.

Physiological Stress - Exercise performed by fish during a catch event, or caused by angler handling methods and air exposure all create measurable physiological responses. Physiological stress in fish has been measured by experimenters using cortisol, lactate and respiratory gas concentrations.

Although the catch and release mortality studies reviewed do not show statistical results directly correlating the degree of physiological stress to mortality, an experiment by Ferguson and Tufts examined the effects of artificially induced stress on rainbow trout. They concluded that various forms of physiological stress contribute to fish mortality (12). It is reasonable to infer that such stress also contributes to mortality in angled fish and therefore, that minimization of stress assists in reduction of catch and release mortality.