Poll on Proposed Fishing Regulation Changes for Kananakis Lakes

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

i see your logic...but with great respect i can almost garantee they will cut the budget on fisheries and build another sauna and rec room on hotel crack downtown. we will never see the savings and it will be hard to regain the budget

To refuse to make fishing better because of politics is impossible to argue against. If we bring religion into the topic...then we can never answer the simple question...do we want to improve the fishing or not in our great Province? If you answer is yes we do that...make positive changes. If you hate the government...exercise you electoral rights. If you can help create a strong lobby group of sportsmen starting with this issue...you can show the government a united voter block that would scare Ed silly. A fractured group is no group...just a mindless mob. You can't change government by complaining about social programs while undermining our fisheries.

IMHO

[steelhead]

Sun said....



"Sounds like you want a utopian ideal of tons of fish everywhere...therefore harvest is spread out and people can fish and harvest to there hearts content."



Yes, I do want that. Everyone here wants that. We all have to go to other provinces to get it. Other provinces have that and not just BC. Other provinces have that and spend and collect the money for that and dont just throw the money for that into the one provincial everything wallet. We should have it here, and we can have it here. The regs are fine. Stricter than the utopian provinces. We need enforcement and enhancement spending, and alot of it and we will have the utopia. Tis a shame you dont feel the same way. But thats exactly how the Gov has conditioned us to feel about our fisheries. And we all fall for it.



Hunterdave just discussed GaryF's post. Gary posted the stocking data from bullshead. The lack of stocking saved the Gov alot according to the data. Did those savings pay for more co's? Did it pay for a decade dead walleyes stocking program for many lakes, not just 4 lakes of which 2 are unfishable by public? Did it pay for someone to manage the parks surrounding the lakes and potholes and river accesses? Did it pay to remove perch from infested lakes? Did it pay to get excellent data on our fisheries as opposed to flawed, out of date dribble? Did it pay to stop poachers? Did it pay for public signage, education and public service anouncements? Did it pay to remove beaver dams?

No, it got cut out of this years fish budget, just like it has done for the past 15 years. Its lower again. Lost and gone forever cause our Gov found a way to save. Never to return. We just lost 50,000 fish that could have gone to another place to help. Or, we just lost that CO that GaryF dreamed might materialized with the savings.


Are you seeing what special regs do as a whole? Not just in one or 2 instances of it doing good, but how it hurts as a whole? These regs hurt. Thank GaryF for that great example.


Not interested in responding to your other comments, they are beaten to death and even you dont even know the answers as they are just as much a baseless view and a bunch of "probablies" as mine seem to be. I know this as neither one of us has a crystal ball.




STEELHEAD

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by smitty9

Happens all the time in a democracy. Politicians listen to squeaky wheels. They assume 250-300 people may actually translate into higher numbers. On a fisheries issue, not sure how they would do the math, but this is common on hot issues like health and education. Its how this country runs. The majority don't really rule. Its always a small group of people, and we depend on them making decisions that align with our values. For better or for worse.

Interesting interpretation of how a democracy works.

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.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by steelhead

Sun said....



"Sounds like you want a utopian ideal of tons of fish everywhere...therefore harvest is spread out and people can fish and harvest to there hearts content."

Yes, I do want that. Everyone here wants that. We all have to go to other provinces to get it. Other provinces have that and not just BC. Other provinces have that and spend and collect the money for that and dont just throw the money for that into the one provincial everything wallet. We should have it here, and we can have it here. The regs are fine. Stricter than the utopian provinces. We need enforcement and enhancement spending, and alot of it and we will have the utopia. Tis a shame you dont feel the same way. But thats exactly how the Gov has conditioned us to feel about our fisheries. And we all fall for it.
STEELHEAD

I believe I see the disconnect in your logic. You want the same fishing for trout in Alberta as your probably see in BC. The problem is under your logic you are comparing apples to oranges. We can never have the same level of trout fishing here as we just don't have the same numbers of lakes, streams and rivers as BC is blessed with. Therefore with more people and fewer waters to fish...the fishing pressure in Alberta is much higher. People complain all the time on this board about someone spreading the word on the internet about good fishing...then the place is inundated and the fishing sucks there after cause all the fish were harvested. This is the whole resource exploitation versus population dilemma. We need different regulations than BC because we are different.

You misread the facts and assume that because BC has a user pay and manage system that all the money goes back in and that is what creates the utopian fishing in BC when compared to Alberta. Your solution of throwing money at a problem...rarely if ever works in the short term...let alone the long term.

Simple as that.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by steelhead

Hunterdave just discussed GaryF's post. Gary posted the stocking data from bullshead. The lack of stocking saved the Gov alot according to the data. Did those savings pay for more co's? Did it pay for a decade dead walleyes stocking program for many lakes, not just 4 lakes of which 2 are unfishable by public? Did it pay for someone to manage the parks surrounding the lakes and potholes and river accesses? Did it pay to remove perch from infested lakes? Did it pay to get excellent data on our fisheries as opposed to flawed, out of date dribble? Did it pay to stop poachers? Did it pay for public signage, education and public service anouncements? Did it pay to remove beaver dams?
STEELHEAD

Most if not all departments got cut as a response to the economic problems we see happening. Money into the government is money we pay in taxes and fees. Can someone confirm what the total number of stocked fish have been over the last 10 years? Is it increasing each year or decreasing? Curious. Steelhead...since this is your argument...please provide this information. Steelhead...please provide the Fisheries budget portion of F&W for the past 10 years. That is a great place to start versus your conjecture.

Maybe someone from F&W can let us know how the yearly breakdown is covered. Or maybe Steelhead can provide this to show how many beaver dams they did remove...how many infractions were processed...how many studies were done (creel, population etc.).

You don't like get guesses or conjecture...but you seem to give them fine.

[chubbdarter]

sun you can twist and type far better than any of us......simply put i dont need reg changes for trout to catch trophy size rainbows let alone 20 inchers......you obviously do, so i wish you the very best in your quest to design a fishery that allows you to be successful.

thanks for the always entertaining chats....

i got kfc...priceless

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

If we want to throw random number scenarios out there... then how about...

Why would SRD not do this simple change if for $5000 less in stocking we get $500,000 in tourist revenue...

Do you think they should not change the regulations out of fear of increased littering?

Common...

You realize the improved fishing will attract everyone. You telling me that someone with a 5 year old will look at a lake with high catch rates of cutties between 12 and 25 inches and say...sorry son...that lake is a waste of time... Let's see if there are any fish left in Mt. Lorette Ponds...

You don't have a clue of what I'm saying do you? Any numbers that anyone posts on here are random if you haven't done your homework and you don't know the difference. But if you did, you might find that the money that is spent on stocking is recovered 10.....20....or 30 fold in revenue. You might even find out that it's advantageous to keep spending the money on stocking every year and allowing people to catch them right away

It might come as a surprise to you but not everyone goes to Kan Lakes for the fishing. Allot of people go camping to spend time with their families. If they happen to go fishing with their kids do you think that Mom and Dad care if junior catches a big fish to eat? Mom & Dad and especially Junior would be just as happy to catch a small fish that they could cook up on the fire. If you don't understand that then you are beyond repair.

As for the littering question that's just, well, garbage.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

sun you can twist and type far better than any of us......simply put i dont need reg changes for trout to catch trophy size rainbows let alone 20 inchers......you obviously do, so i wish you the very best in your quest to design a fishery that allows you to be successful.

thanks for the always entertaining chats....

i got kfc...priceless

Ouch... LOL

Yes we know...to catch big fish you go to Kootenay. Those of us that want to stay and play in Alberta...want to see some improvement to the stock em and killem rules for one spot that has the factors that meet the guidelines for a greatly improved quality fishery...here...in Alberta. You should be the poster child for Tourism BC. I think Kootenay Lake should get increased traffic from all the hype of the big monsters there. Do you use a guide and fish deep?

[steelhead]

Doing my thinking for me again. Thanks, but your not getting anything I stand for as I mentioned previously.


I am a multi-specie angler. That means i fish all species, not just trout. I care what happens to all species, not just trout.

I was waiting for someone to throw the "not as many fishable waters as other provinces" comment in. I kinda knew it would be you. I can see why you think i have the disconnect problem.


Another red herring the Gov wants us to believe is the problem with our province. No sir, that isnt the problem with the fisheries. The problem is funding and enforcement. You can throw that government conditioned comment right out of the ice shack.


Sun wrote

"You misread the facts and assume that because BC has a user pay and manage system that all the money goes back in and that is what creates the utopian fishing in BC when compared to Alberta. Your solution of throwing money at a problem...rarely if ever works in the short term...let alone the long term.

Simple as that. "

Some of that money does go back into BC's fishery, here it goes to fighting forest fires.


I bet you havent fished many other provinces(other than BC), followed other provinces fishing boards, or see what other provinces do to maintain an all around quality fishery have you? According to your posts and input from the last 6 years, I know you havent. You go to BC and way south for your fishing, and your community pond. I rarely, if ever, see you mention any other fishing you did in Alberta.


The solution of throwing money at a problem is the answer nowadays to create quality as proven in other provinces. Even BC has figured out that thier fisheries are not self-sustainable and they spend to keep the quality. As we all see in this province compared to others, no money means less quality, and alot more complaints. And I'm not just talking trout! Perch in this trout lake, quads muddying those rivers cause theres no bridges, rampant poaching on our lakes, Shoreline habitat destruction, Commercial fishing and on and on. So the gov makes more rules and doesnt enforce them. And they offer no money to enforce them.

It takes money, simple as that!

[GaryF]

Steelhead, over the past 3 years of stocking, srd has stocked 121 million fish into AB waters, with the bulk of them being walleye(112 million). How much more fish should the govt raise before we have to realize that we can't just continue fishing places dry?? We've just gotten used to the govt constantly replacing what we over fish. How do we stop over fishing? Stricter regs is the only way to go. People need to understand the limits of what we have. Stocking should be used to help repair a fishery when nature kicks its butt certain years, not because we don't know when a fish is too small or when we've taken too much. And thats just MHO

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

......simply put i dont need reg changes for trout to catch trophy size rainbows let alone 20 inchers......you obviously do, so i wish you the very best in your quest to design a fishery that allows you to be successful.

Well, making it easier to catch bigger fish pretty much sums it up doesn't it?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

You don't have a clue of what I'm saying do you? Any numbers that anyone posts on here are random if you haven't done your homework and you don't know the difference. But if you did, you might find that the money that is spent on stocking is recovered 10.....20....or 30 fold in revenue. You might even find out that it's advantageous to keep spending the money on stocking every year and allowing people to catch them right away

It might come as a surprise to you but not everyone goes to Kan Lakes for the fishing. Allot of people go camping to spend time with their families. If they happen to go fishing with their kids do you think that Mom and Dad care if junior catches a big fish to eat? Mom & Dad and especially Junior would be just as happy to catch a small fish that they could cook up on the fire. If you don't understand that then you are beyond repair.

As for the littering question that's just, well, garbage.

Please provide the link that shows specifically that spending $10,000 on stocking generates $100,000 in revenue. I would love to read it. Now the question is...are people spending the dollars to just find fish? Is that economic spin off limited until the fish run out and can we extend the benefits through a prolonged harvest. Will benefits increased if people can catch bigger fish here than driving to Kootenay Lake? You are not hearing this. I am hearing you but I am looking big picture...you are looking small picture.

More conjecture over kids catching fish and wanting to catch and kill any fish regardless of size. Then I postulate...those kids will be amazed by the bigger fish or tons more smaller fish and learn conservation in the process. Catching a keeper will feed the family. Catching small easy to catch fish is still available at Elbow Lake which has easy access. The whole family can take 5 brookies home each...and bonus...they CAN USE BAIT THERE. If you are fixed so tightly to an image of a kid being disappoint about catching 30 cutties and not being able to kill one...you are lost. If killing one is so critical...again...what is the big deal about going to Elbow Lake for instance? Looking to the future...harvestable fish will be available... Currently regulations means any trout less than 12 inches...can't be kept. I have not heard any complaints about not killing an 8 inch trout.

I have also stated there is lots of other activities...and fishing is just one usage.

I agree...let's toss the whole garbage idea is the waste can. It is an irrelevant issue.

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Ouch... LOL

Yes we know...to catch big fish you go to Kootenay. Those of us that want to stay and play in Alberta...want to see some improvement to the stock em and killem rules for one spot that has the factors that meet the guidelines for a greatly improved quality fishery...here...in Alberta. You should be the poster child for Tourism BC. I think Kootenay Lake should get increased traffic from all the hype of the big monsters there. Do you use a guide and fish deep?

hahahahhahahhahahaahahahahhhaaa

you could be the poster child for lake sundance.
did you dump in those perch so you could become famous?
good luck making kan into a koot.
i already posted for you how i fish koot....nah no guide....but i'd highly recomeend you get one

sun have a great fishing season i hope all your dreams come true.

i think kfc pieces are getting smaller

p.s. please hold im on flyfish calgary them boys have no problems catching 20 inchers

[smitty9]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Who were you thinking about when you typed that? Kananaskis Lakes area is a huge family orientated tourist industry. Do you actually think that campers should drive to a pothole lake from their campsite when they are looking at the Kan Lakes? C'mom smitty.....

Lol...HunterDave. I suppose its easy to try and make a point if you can cherry pick. If catch rates go up (previous poster about defining a quality fishery as such) and the avg size goes up, AND the kid has a shot at taking one big fish home, its win-win-win. Sorry that simple logic escapes you. Please read the post more carefully and skip the presumptions.

Or at least read Barry Mitchell's AB guide. ULK and LKL aren't the only "games in town" when it comes to fishing K-country. No one - certainly not me is telling anyone to go fish or they must fish only prairie potholes. By the way, who says or why must the concept of quality fisheries be limited to prairie potholes. Talk about limiting your vision...

Again, massive lakes, big potential, and some people adopt an approach of NIMBY or lets pretend its just another 25 acre pothole. Unfortunate.

Smitty

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by steelhead

Doing my thinking for me again. Thanks, but your not getting anything I stand for as I mentioned previously.


I am a multi-specie angler. That means i fish all species, not just trout. I care what happens to all species, not just trout.

I was waiting for someone to throw the "not as many fishable waters as other provinces" comment in. I kinda knew it would be you. I can see why you think i have the disconnect problem.


Another red herring the Gov wants us to believe is the problem with our province. No sir, that isnt the problem with the fisheries. The problem is funding and enforcement. You can throw that government conditioned comment right out of the ice shack.


Sun wrote

"You misread the facts and assume that because BC has a user pay and manage system that all the money goes back in and that is what creates the utopian fishing in BC when compared to Alberta. Your solution of throwing money at a problem...rarely if ever works in the short term...let alone the long term.

Simple as that. "

Some of that money does go back into BC's fishery, here it goes to fighting forest fires.


I bet you havent fished many other provinces(other than BC), followed other provinces fishing boards, or see what other provinces do to maintain an all around quality fishery have you? According to your posts and input from the last 6 years, I know you havent. You go to BC and way south for your fishing, and your community pond. I rarely, if ever, see you mention any other fishing you did in Alberta.


The solution of throwing money at a problem is the answer nowadays to create quality as proven in other provinces. Even BC has figured out that thier fisheries are not self-sustainable and they spend to keep the quality. As we all see in this province compared to others, no money means less quality, and alot more complaints. And I'm not just talking trout! Perch in this trout lake, quads muddying those rivers cause theres no bridges, rampant poaching on our lakes, Shoreline habitat destruction, Commercial fishing and on and on. So the gov makes more rules and doesnt enforce them. And they offer no money to enforce them.

It takes money, simple as that!

Look at a map...compare lakes in BC to lakes in Alberta near major urban centers. It will become clear to you about the lack of lakes in Southern Alberta.

You keep insinuating most stocked trout are poached. If you are seeing this...how often are you reporting it? I frankly have fished lots over the years...I do not see it...and I watch for it.

Please give us the information on stocking I asked for. Let's compare the number of lakes and numbers of fish stocked in Alberta versus BC. Then we can talk about your conjectures. I think we will find the actual data interesting.

Apparently BC stocks 8 million fish into 900 rivers/lakes. There is a hard fact for you.

BC
http://www.gofishbc.com/whatwedo.htm
"Freshwater fishing is an important recreational and economic activity. Approximately 400,000 licensed anglers spend $400-500 million on freshwater fishing in B.C. each year. Recent surveys show that about one-half of the angler effort in fresh water takes place on lakes stocked by Society hatcheries."

Alberta

Originally Posted by GaryF

So ppl come from BC to fish our amazing pike and walleye, and albertans head to BC to fish thier big trout in lakes? And working towards creating one or two of these lakes here in alberta, close to calgary, is a bad thing? I have followed this topic since the start and have yet to see anything posted that is a true factual negative to this initiative. Lots of IMHO out there about garbage, traffic, congestion, kids not being able to catch fish, etc. One poster listed another 50 plus lakes and potholes that can be stripped clean of fish for those that like to keep their catches, so I am still missing why changing 2 lakes to stricter regs to promote a quality fishery is such a problem. The SRD stocked 242 lakes, potholes, and steams last year with over 20 million fish and will do the same this year.

Facts on Bullshead, prior to regs changes, 70,000 fish stocked annually, after 5 years of regs changes, now stocked with 20,000 fish. Plain math shows a 50,000 fish lower stocking rate just by having these changes. Based on that there is a possible reduction of 24,000 fish stocked in K lakes. Just between those 2 areas there would be enough money for another CO to be out there as all of us believe there are not enough CO's to do the job.

So...what is Alberta doing wrong? We have fewer lakes and are stocking almost 300% more? I thought I read that our licensing revenue is only about $100 MM compared to the $400-500 MM in BC. As I mentioned before...you are arguing apple to oranges against a great initiative in our Province. Why?

I don't agree with your argument that to improve fishing in Alberta we need 80,000,000 fish stocked. Would you pay $300 for a yearly license to cover costs? How about being fair and make a two tier licence. $50 if catch and release...and $700 to cover the right to kill a sustainable limit and bonus fish stocked?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

hahahahhahahhahahaahahahahhhaaa

you could be the poster child for lake sundance.
did you dump in those perch so you could become famous?
good luck making kan into a koot.
i already posted for you how i fish koot....nah no guide....but i'd highly recomeend you get one

sun have a great fishing season i hope all your dreams come true.

i think kfc pieces are getting smaller

p.s. please hold im on flyfish calgary them boys have no problems catching 20 inchers

I would not know how to fish Kootenay Lake. You betcha I would need a guide.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Please provide the link that shows specifically that spending $10,000 on stocking generates $100,000 in revenue. I would love to read it. Now the question is...are people spending the dollars to just find fish? Is that economic spin off limited until the fish run out and can we extend the benefits through a prolonged harvest. Will benefits increased if people can catch bigger fish here than driving to Kootenay Lake? You are not hearing this. I am hearing you but I am looking big picture...you are looking small picture.

More conjecture over kids catching fish and wanting to catch and kill any fish regardless of size. Then I postulate...those kids will be amazed by the bigger fish or tons more smaller fish and learn conservation in the process. Catching a keeper will feed the family. Catching small easy to catch fish is still available at Elbow Lake which has easy access. The whole family can take 5 brookies home each...and bonus...they CAN USE BAIT THERE. If you are fixed so tightly to an image of a kid being disappoint about catching 30 cutties and not being able to kill one...you are lost. If killing one is so critical...again...what is the big deal about going to Elbow Lake for instance? Looking to the future...harvestable fish will be available... Currently regulations means any trout less than 12 inches...can't be kept. I have not heard any complaints about not killing an 8 inch trout.

I have also stated there is lots of other activities...and fishing is just one usage.

I agree...let's toss the whole garbage idea is the waste can. It is an irrelevant issue.

You still don't get it. If YOU don't have the facts then YOUR proposal is doomed before it even begins. I shouldn't need to look for any facts. They should all be listed on this thread so I can decide whether or not I support your proposal. If you go into a meeting to present your proposal I hope that you have your act together because if you go into it with the same idea that the party should do your research for you............

Great idea about teaching the kids about conservation BTW. Yup, keep only the spawning sized fish and throw all of the smaller eating sized ones back. No wonder some kids have no idea about anything!

You can't see the big picture if you have tunnel vision. The big picture includes the social, economic and environmental impact of such a study. The small picture is "This proposal will allow the fish to grow bigger." I'm not sure if you can grasp that or not?

[Sundancefisher]

When you have more lakes...your spread out the fishing pressure...when you spread out the fishing pressure...you can harvest more fish... Still...a lot of my buddies that fish BC...put their trout back. That also needs to be factored in. The harvest folks get great benefit from the catch and release folks. If everyone harvested...we would probably be on a tag limit for all species in Alberta.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

You still don't get it. If YOU don't have the facts then YOUR proposal is doomed before it even begins. I shouldn't need to look for any facts. They should all be listed on this thread so I can decide whether or not I support your proposal. If you go into a meeting to present your proposal I hope that you have your act together because if you go into it with the same idea that the party should do your research for you............

Great idea about teaching the kids about conservation BTW. Yup, keep only the spawning sized fish and throw all of the smaller eating sized ones back. No wonder some kids have no idea about anything!

You can't see the big picture if you have tunnel vision. The big picture includes the social, economic and environmental impact of such a study. The small picture is "This proposal will allow the fish to grow bigger." I'm not sure if you can grasp that or not?

I can't argue your made up facts. You need to use some common sense.

Your economic argument...With economic value decrease or increase with better fishing? Please...you seriously going to say decrease?

Your social argument...what a kid is going to cry because of catching fish...but not one big enough that day?

Your environmental argument? Already covered...your species argument..bogus. They are already there? Your point has not been clarify as to what the problem is? You are not thinking big picture but trying to throw a tattered blanket over the positive points hoping someone will buy your Swiss cheese logic.

Please conservation...throwing back big fish that mother nature grew in a put and take lake...you throwing a spawning argument at me? Get real. If you are talking bull trout...that is a different story. Stocked cutties...no...kill em over 20 inches if you want to eat em!

[HunterDave]

Alright, I'll lead you down the garden path. List 4 reasons why your proposal is a good idea:

1. It'll make it easier to catch bigger fish;
2.
3.
4.
5.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

You still don't get it. If YOU don't have the facts then YOUR proposal is doomed before it even begins. I shouldn't need to look for any facts. They should all be listed on this thread so I can decide whether or not I support your proposal. If you go into a meeting to present your proposal I hope that you have your act together because if you go into it with the same idea that the party should do your research for you............

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

Geez...so few fish stocked in BC...for such awesome fishing... Why is that? More lakes...better regulations? Hmmmm..

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Alright, I'll lead you down the garden path. List 4 reasons why your proposal is a good idea:

1. It'll make it easier to catch bigger fish;
2.
3.
4.
5.

my eyes are bleeding now.....he will type 50 pages....hhhhhahahahhahhha...dave your a sadist...lol

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Alright, I'll lead you down the garden path. List 4 reasons why your proposal is a good idea:

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 will hit the sack now...but hopefully other guys pro regs can add a few more...but these are good uns. :-)

How many do you need.

Alright, to be fair...please list a comparable number of reasons why this is not a good idea:

1. Can't catch only small fish anymore...
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

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

Geez...so few fish stocked in BC...for such awesome fishing... Why is that? More lakes...better regulations? Hmmmm..

I don't know, you tell me.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

my eyes are bleeding now.....he will type 50 pages....hhhhhahahahhahhha...dave your a sadist...lol

Yes, but will it contain anything noteworthy.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I will hit the sack now...but hopefully other guys pro regs can add a few more...but these are good uns. :-)

How many do you need.

Alright, to be fair...please list a comparable number of reasons why this is not a good idea:

1. Can't catch only small fish anymore...
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

You only needed 4 other reasons! You can't even give four reasons?

That's pretty much what I thought. It wasn't really fair though because I already used the only good one that I've seen posted on here.

You sleep on it Sundance and I'll check again tomorrow.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

You only needed 4 other reasons! You can't even give four reasons?

That's pretty much what I thought. It wasn't really fair though because I already used the only good one that I've seen posted on here.

You sleep on it Sundance and I'll check again tomorrow.

You must have hit the edit button as I replied as I see there are now 10 points that are listed.

[HunterDave]

Top Ten Reasons Why Sundance Thinks That This Proposal is a Good Idea:

1. Increased catch rates (Yes, the same illegal to keep fish could potentially be caught numerous times)
2. Increased economic benefits (Assumption)
3. Creation of a quality fishery near a major urban area (No, it's already a quality fishery - Opinion)
4. Increased usage will improve enforcement through extra eyes (Assumption)
5. Delayed harvest means more stable fishing (No, it's already stable - Opinion)
6. Increased fish sizes (No, the fish won't get any bigger than the ones already in the lake, there will just be more of them. No study done to support this point)
7. Lake meets suitability for quality fishery (Yes, since it already is one. However, there is no study done to determine the ramifications of having more large fish in the lakes)
8. Stocking of native cutties will compliment ecosystem (No, they are already there and are being stocked)
9. Increased tourism and park usage (Assumption)
10.Increased usage for fishing will highlight the benefits to the government (Say what? Assumption....I think?)

Of course, like everything in life, everyone will draw their own conclusions and by no means do I consider my opinion factual. That being said, by my count I get: 2 Yes, 4 No and 4 assumptions.

The good news is that there can't be any wrong answers. The question asked was why you thought the proposal was a good idea and all that you had to do was answer to be correct. They are after all what you think.

The bad news is that if this question had been asked at a presentation to promote this proposal you would have failed miserably. Unless of course you had the facts to support what I classed as no or assumptions.

[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.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

You must have hit the edit button as I replied as I see there are now 10 points that are listed.

No...you were just too quick to judge without reading the facts presented and instead trying to belittle a posters position. Which in all fairness...is not what debating is all about.

BC and Alberta are different...hence different regulations. It is only fair to give each jurisdiction a quality fishery after the demand shown from Bullhead. As there are few to no alternatives outside of UKL and LKL these become the best choice purely for that reason alone.

With so many other fishing alternatives pointed out by other posters for people wanting just small fish...it is only fair.