If you could make the walleye regs?

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck

Pinelakeperch,

The issue is not a background in biology for the decision makers, it is their ideology on the use of the resource.

Alot of the Fisheries ideology is driven by a belief that there is a crisis that is the Recreational Anglers' fault. If that was so, 20 years of recreational closures in the St. Paul Area would have fish walking on land to escape the overcrowding in the lakes!

Instead, one user group is being excluded on the philosophy that the Recreational Anglers should not be fishing in the first place, because the resource should be the exclusive domain of some other more privileged user group? The resource belongs to us all, but Fisheries thinks that excluding the Recreational Anglers will balance a problem that is increasing from the non regulated users.

Nothing that the Recreational Anglers will ever do can compare to the constant non regulated netting in the spawning areas, for example. Netting, by its very nature, removes the biggest fish, with the greatest recruitment potential. Yet this problem is easily justification for a Conservation Closure to all user groups, if Fisheries wishes to pull on its big boy pants for a change, and take a stand against this indiscriminate netting problem on lakes like Lac La Biche.

As such, what is needed is a change in philosophy recognizing the right of use by all groups, with a slot size that spreads fishing pressure across many water bodies. Recruitment both before a fish reaches the slot size ensures replacement. Release after the fish grows beyond the slot size ensures that trophy potential and genetics is preserved. Netting does not do either.

So for your belief that the Biologists have some mystical knowledge that must be deferred to: about science perhaps, but about a philosophical approach that respects the rights of all user groups, no.

Drewski

I get it you dont like the Bios, can tell by the slant you put on things.

They control, what they can control.

Being a lawyer, you should know the problems there(in regard to all groups).

I get that people dont like it but unless changed nothing anyone can do including Bios.

[Drewski Canuck]

huntfurfish,

This is not a personal matter with any individual bio.

It is a PHILOSOPHY in the Government that is the problem.

There is in fact a conservation closure around the Churchill river on Lac La Biche that was imposed before the stocking program started.

They know that they have authority to do Conservation Closures and a Conservation Closure on ANY water body.

They know they can do a Conservation Closure on a whole lake from the month of April to May 15 on lakes that are closed for recreational fishing.

A Conservation Closure for ALL GROUPS will allow complete spawning of the whole breeding population for walleye. Every big hen that drops 200K of eggs that is right now getting netted, sets back the recruitment of the walleye population for ALL USER GROUPS.

This is not me speaking knowledge from God that Man did not possess.

This THREAD is about Waleye REGULATIONS.

Why should it just be restricted to Recreational Anglers?

Just for once, lets hear from all the lurking Bios and Managers trolling on this Board WHY this could not be imposed?

Just for once, lets hear from all the lurking Bios and Managers trolling on this Board why this proposal would not improve Walleye populations so that we could move to a Slot Size across the province?

The Government can still sell tags, but this time it would be for trophy fish that have aged to the point of non viable egg production.

Drewski

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

I get it you dont like the Bios, can tell by the slant you put on things.

They control, what they can control.

Being a lawyer, you should know the problems there(in regard to all groups).

I get that people dont like it but unless changed nothing anyone can do including Bios.

Am I wrong in thinking that in your opinion the only way of sustaining walleye in Alberta is by outlawing retention?

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Am I wrong in thinking that in your opinion the only way of sustaining walleye in Alberta is by outlawing retention?

Not sure where you got that impression.

I have a feeling I am being baited. Am I wrong?

Yes you are. I even like to keep one once in a while.

[Elkaholic338]

I find it interesting and somewhat disheartening to read the comments on this thread. Often it is a lack of understanding that causes division, and unfortunately it is the division among fisherman that allows the government to mismanage our resource so appallingly.

My hope is that as fisherman we can come to some sort of unity with regards to the needs of our sport, regardless of whether you are a C&R only angler or a release in grease sort.

As for myself, I have fished walleye as long as I can remember, and over the last 35 years or so have been witness to some very interesting times in the Alberta fishery scene. I continue to fish walleye as my primary focus and am actively involved in the WCWT tournament scene and have done well over the years that I have fished it. I was also involved with some of the electro netting that took place on South Buck in the mid 90's, and I continue to fish all over the province from Chin reservoir in the south to Slave and Lac La Biche in the north and everywhere in between, so I feel that I can speak with some insight to the fishery.

The points that I am hoping to make when it comes to Walleye fishing are these:

1) Not everyone fishes for walleye, of the 300,000 anglers that were mentioned earlier, a majority of those will never target walleye, and are primarily trout, or pike anglers or ice fish for whites or perch only. Of those that do target walleye, most catch very few, unless on an incredible walleye fishery where the fish are starving for forage. This is because walleye are notoriously difficult to catch, even for those of us that have dedicated a fishing career to learning about them and how to fool them. I will postulate that those anglers that troll red and white spoons and rubber tail jigs in 4 feet of water at 3 miles per hour in the weeds looking for pike will catch very few walleye. This is not an indication of population, but one of technique.

2) Slot sizes work. It has been proven in countless lakes in the US and Canada that slot sizing will leave the brood stock to spawn and the small fish to grow while selectively harvesting mid sized fish. Those that feel that the lakes will be fished out due to this have more faith in their abilities to catch every fish in the lake than I do, as generally when the population decreases the difficulty of catching them increases as well. as long as the spawners continue to replenish the lake, there will always be some that make it through the slot to replace the spawners and this also allows easier management of the lake. If it becomes difficult to catch the slot fish, they can simply reduce the slot size or close for a time to allow replenishment. The slot also allows those anglers that are C&R only and want to catch a trophy class fish to be able to do so and likely catch larger ones as the competition for the forage is lessened.

3) Keeping walleye will prevent decimation of other fish species. We have placed walleye on a pedestal here in Alberta to the detriment of other species. Walleye are voracious predators and when left unchecked will consume the forage base and the young of the year of other sport fish. We are seeing this now with many lakes where the walleye have been closed for the last 20 years the perch, whitefish, and pike populations have been severely impacted and the need to reduce the walleye population is a very real thing. Allowing anglers to keep one fish per day in the slot size would have the effect of managing the populations as well as improving the quality of fish that are available.

Unfortunately if the anglers of this province continue to drink the Kool-Aid that opening up lakes to a narrow slot with low keep #'s will "fish out all the lakes", or the mentality that "only the way that I fish matters and all others are wrong" whether that be C&R or C&K, we will never be able to present a united front to our elected officials and so will never be able to enact meaningful change. We will always have those that break the law and keep more than allowed, or outside of the size restrictions, however they will do this regardless of the regulations in place and advocating to keep lakes closed because people poach is like castrating yourself because your neighbours have too many kids.

I realize that this is a long post, but I am hopeful that this might cause us all to think about the state of our resource a bit more.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Not sure where you got that impression.

I have a feeling I am being baited. Am I wrong?

Yes you are. I even like to keep one once in a while.

It was an honest question, no bait.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

It was an honest question, no bait.

Then I must apologize for my comment. Sorry Kurt.

[EZM]

Lots of opinions here - and very little pragmatic thought ....... my comments are intended not to single out or target anyone who has contributed, but rather to provide some food for thought.

1) You cannot apply a "general walleye" limit or slot size or any harvest plan across an entire province like Alberta where the amount of water is limited. As a result the pressure is high here in Alberta. Comparing it to another jurisdiction is flawed. Apples to Oranges.

2) Any management (harvest, C&R, slot size) limits must be specific to the watershed as one lakes population and health are not necessarily indicative of the lake 30km down the road. A one size shoe fits all strategy does not work.

3) You need more BIOs to be able to properly and thoroughly study a specific watershed so they can apply a specific strategy to that same, and distinct, watershed. Because these BIO's are underfunded and overworked they cannot dedicate the time or attention to doing a good job with everything they are supposed to get done in a season. Try building a fence with scotch tape and a staple gun and see how that turns out for you. To insinuate these individuals are to blame, or perhaps that they are stupid isn't fair.

If we really want change, we should use the AFGA as a resource to present a resolution to the SRD which would effectively focus on providing greater support for our BIO's (money, manpower, etc..) - it is likely to be paid for from somewhere, so we should be prepared to pay up or shut up ..... which means a potential increase to our license costs OR the re-allocation of funds from another program (related or not).

[1899b]

Originally Posted by trigger7mm

I remember when I was a kid, there was no limit on perch. Walleye and pike were 10 each per day. Ice fisherman used to fish Moose Lake in the late winter, and take out pails of perch day after day back then.

Lol. I was referring to moose lake as well. Folks are from Bonnyville. Grew up with a summer home in Northshore Heights...

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by EZM

Lots of opinions here - and very little pragmatic thought ....... my comments are intended not to single out or target anyone who has contributed, but rather to provide some food for thought.

1) You cannot apply a "general walleye" limit or slot size or any harvest plan across an entire province like Alberta where the amount of water is limited. As a result the pressure is high here in Alberta. Comparing it to another jurisdiction is flawed. Apples to Oranges.

2) Any management (harvest, C&R, slot size) limits must be specific to the watershed as one lakes population and health are not necessarily indicative of the lake 30km down the road. A one size shoe fits all strategy does not work.

3) You need more BIOs to be able to properly and thoroughly study a specific watershed so they can apply a specific strategy to that same, and distinct, watershed. Because these BIO's are underfunded and overworked they cannot dedicate the time or attention to doing a good job with everything they are supposed to get done in a season. Try building a fence with scotch tape and a staple gun and see how that turns out for you. To insinuate these individuals are to blame, or perhaps that they are stupid isn't fair.

If we really want change, we should use the AFGA as a resource to present a resolution to the SRD which would effectively focus on providing greater support for our BIO's (money, manpower, etc..) - it is likely to be paid for from somewhere, so we should be prepared to pay up or shut up ..... which means a potential increase to our license costs OR the re-allocation of funds from another program (related or not).

Well said and agree.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Well said and agree.

Yes, agree as well.

Well said EZM and thanks. The 2nd point you make I hope some on here can take and think about that one more because that always seems to get lost in these discussions and we are back to general regulations or "this worked here so should work elsewhere".

[Pikebreath]

One thing that is sometimes missing in these discussions is what a typical walleye lake in natural balance should be like.

My mother's family comes from north of Glendon and I am old enough to remember a daily limit of 15 fish (combination of pike and walleye) back in the 60's. In those years, new roads were being punched in to lakes like Wolf, Siebert, Pinehurst. Touchwood etc.

Anglers flocked to whatever new lake now had road access, The walleye fishing was incredible in those first years. We would troll len thompson spoons on wire leaders and typically boat a limit of 15 walleye per person often in just a couple hours of fishing. Then it was back to shore where the women folk had set up camp stoves and were canning fish. The men would then go back and get another 15 walleye each.

Usually in the first trip or two to a new lake we would catch more quite few more walleye than pike. Of course the walleye fishery could not sustain that kind of pressure and in a couple years our walleye catch rate was falling quickly and we started catching more pike. It was now easier to catch pike comparative to the walleye. Decent pike fishing with a few walleye mixed in seemed to last a few years through the 70s into the 80's, but eventually even the pike became smaller and fewer in number as well. Removing the top predators in the lakes allowed the perch population to really take off during this transition period.

By the mid 80's these fisheries were mere shadows of what they had been 10- 20 years earlier.

This is purely anecdotal and speculation ,,,,,, but lakes without any previous years of angling pressure should be close to a natural balance. If this is the case, then it can argued that the phenomenal walleye fishing we experienced in the first year or two of access seems to indicate walleye may indeed be the apex predator in many lakes and pike and perch numbers are reduced in comparison. It also seems to show that walleye are more easily fished out comparative to pike and perch, but even pike and perch can take a beating from continued excessive angling pressure.


Just something to think about when we hear complaints about there being too many walleye now again.

[West O'5]

Definitely a slot limit,targeting the large spawners is just ludicrous,and as a C&R sport fishery,walleye are pretty lame and boring to begin with,why bother,they are like reeling in a rubber boot,might as well go to any local beaver pond and snag sticks to test your tackle and angling prowess.Walleye are delicious and meant to be eaten,but they are about a 2 on a scale of 1-10 as a sport fish,lazy and boring with no stamina.C&R walleye fishing is for 8 year olds,if you are that easily entertained you are a sadist inflicting unnecessary C&R mortality,you most likely think that checkers is a legit sport,and have the IQ of a 6 week old kitten. I have a ball of yarn for sale you can play with instead of torturing dumb fish.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Then I must apologize for my comment. Sorry Kurt.

Absolutely no need to apologize, no offense was taken.

I think regulations should be put in place for “square hooks” and a walleye stocking program should be put into play.

Saskatchewan has a lot more lakes than Alberta, but one would have to admit that the majority of the lakes in Saskatchewan never see a boat. I’m not sure what the number of lakes in Saskatchewan are actually accessible, but I’d venture to say that maybe 1/4 of them are accessible at best.

I also think Alberta has too strict of regulations, they are creating walleye pollution in many of its lakes, populations so far out of proportion that they are doing more harm than good imo.

[Drewski Canuck]

Originally Posted by EZM

Lots of opinions here - and very little pragmatic thought ....... my comments are intended not to single out or target anyone who has contributed, but rather to provide some food for thought.

1) You cannot apply a "general walleye" limit or slot size or any harvest plan across an entire province like Alberta where the amount of water is limited. As a result the pressure is high here in Alberta. Comparing it to another jurisdiction is flawed. Apples to Oranges.

2) Any management (harvest, C&R, slot size) limits must be specific to the watershed as one lakes population and health are not necessarily indicative of the lake 30km down the road. A one size shoe fits all strategy does not work.

3) You need more BIOs to be able to properly and thoroughly study a specific watershed so they can apply a specific strategy to that same, and distinct, watershed. Because these BIO's are underfunded and overworked they cannot dedicate the time or attention to doing a good job with everything they are supposed to get done in a season. Try building a fence with scotch tape and a staple gun and see how that turns out for you. To insinuate these individuals are to blame, or perhaps that they are stupid isn't fair.

If we really want change, we should use the AFGA as a resource to present a resolution to the SRD which would effectively focus on providing greater support for our BIO's (money, manpower, etc..) - it is likely to be paid for from somewhere, so we should be prepared to pay up or shut up ..... which means a potential increase to our license costs OR the re-allocation of funds from another program (related or not).

Gee EZM,

How about the ONE THING DIFFERENT that I mentioned. Conservation Closures during the Spawning period that the Recreational Anglers have to abide by? This COULD be imposed Province Wide, as the Walleye still spawn in the spring throughout the Province.

No need to get more bios studying that proposal, its basic knowledge.

However, you and huntsfurfish gloss over that ONE simple proposal, that would make a world of difference to each and every waterbody in Alberta which has a spawning walleye population.

So you two, tell me why Fisheries CANNOT act like professionals and make a difference for once by imposing this simple solution with the tool of Conservation Closures, that in fact allows control over the non regulated user groups when the walleye resource is its most vulnerable.



Drewski

[MooseRiverTrapper]

Slots are the answer. Progressive regs. Proactive regs. Close it down for June and July. Close it for March. Adjust slots. Make it work. Not the BS we’ve been dealt for the last 20 years in the province. Bios for lakes and wildlife management should be ashamed. Possibly tarred and feathered.

[kevinhits]

Originally Posted by Walleyedude

Where did you hear that?

I'd be amazed if that was true...

Well respected users on here and facebook....Someone actually seen it happening....and I believe him based on posting history....

[Habfan]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

??? bolded please explain.

As for stocking it can maybe help a bit. But will not create the food source and answer to the problem that so many are looking for. Walleye are slow growing and take about 5 years to spawn.

If you are looking for put and take, then trout is clearly much better suited.

Sorry I was away ! What I meant was, Use $ from lisences to stock fish instead of putting it in General Revenue !! And stocking helps more than a bit, also pointed out that fish need to be put in lakes that can sustain a healthy population.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Habfan

Sorry I was away ! What I meant was, Use $ from lisences to stock fish instead of putting it in General Revenue !! And stocking helps more than a bit, also pointed out that fish need to be put in lakes that can sustain a healthy population.

Sorry doesnt work that way. It doesnt go to General Revenue. Government only gets 5%(believe that to be the GST) of the license thats all. ACA does some stocking with your money, but goes to put and take trout lakes.

Fisheries need money for enforcement, stocking, testing, more officers and techs. That comes out of general coffers. Cuts to staff or at least not keeping up with the population increases has been not so good for quite some time. So not the result/fault of current government either.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck

Gee EZM,

How about the ONE THING DIFFERENT that I mentioned. Conservation Closures during the Spawning period that the Recreational Anglers have to abide by? This COULD be imposed Province Wide, as the Walleye still spawn in the spring throughout the Province.

No need to get more bios studying that proposal, its basic knowledge.

However, you and huntsfurfish gloss over that ONE simple proposal, that would make a world of difference to each and every waterbody in Alberta which has a spawning walleye population.

So you two, tell me why Fisheries CANNOT act like professionals and make a difference for once by imposing this simple solution with the tool of Conservation Closures, that in fact allows control over the non regulated user groups when the walleye resource is its most vulnerable.

Drewski

You do realize that Treaty rights are just that, "rights", dont you?
They have priority. Maybe not fair, but until its renegotiated it is what it is.
That is why!

If taken to court what happens? If the government loses what then?
I think you knew the answers already.

So they regulate what they can. Us.

There answered for you.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Absolutely no need to apologize, no offense was taken.

I think regulations should be put in place for “square hooks” and a walleye stocking program should be put into play.

Saskatchewan has a lot more lakes than Alberta, but one would have to admit that the majority of the lakes in Saskatchewan never see a boat. I’m not sure what the number of lakes in Saskatchewan are actually accessible, but I’d venture to say that maybe 1/4 of them are accessible at best.

I also think Alberta has too strict of regulations, they are creating walleye pollution in many of its lakes, populations so far out of proportion that they are doing more harm than good imo.

Kurt, much of our water is in the North as well.

I get it that people want to eat some.

Some on here want to see stocking, some figure there are already to much walleye. Some want Trophy waters some just want to catch lots. Hard to please everyone to the level they want.
In some cases, just have to wait a bit for things to balance.
No easy answer and lots of variables.

[wind drift]

Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck

Gee EZM,

How about the ONE THING DIFFERENT that I mentioned. Conservation Closures during the Spawning period that the Recreational Anglers have to abide by? This COULD be imposed Province Wide, as the Walleye still spawn in the spring throughout the Province.

No need to get more bios studying that proposal, its basic knowledge.

However, you and huntsfurfish gloss over that ONE simple proposal, that would make a world of difference to each and every waterbody in Alberta which has a spawning walleye population.

So you two, tell me why Fisheries CANNOT act like professionals and make a difference for once by imposing this simple solution with the tool of Conservation Closures, that in fact allows control over the non regulated user groups when the walleye resource is its most vulnerable.



Drewski

I think a banker would advise you that it, if your withdrawals exceed the interest on your account, the timing of withdrawals doesn’t matter. Your account will diminish. Using season closures to delay harvest, if potential harvest still exceeds supply, will fail. Season closures have been on the books for decades in Alberta. Despite that, fisheries collapsed.

I think this is a great case in point for why actual data matters. As anglers, we have lots of anecdotes, beliefs and ideas, and freely diagnose and prescribe solutions on their basis, but that might get blown out of the water when confronted by data.

I think it’s more useful for us to ask more questions than give more ‘answers’.

My $0.02.

[Drewski Canuck]

And again, not a single answer why a conservation closure for all user groups from April 1 - May 15 would NOT be a benefit to walleye populations, which in turn, means more walleye for all user groups.

Didn't the SCC say that Conservation comes before Treaty?

If you do not like the answer, then change the question, is that the Government's approach?

Drewski

[wind drift]

Please re-read my post. Overall, fishing effort will trump delayed harvest from spring closures. Spring closures are already in effect in most walleye lakes. They also apply to netting.

[Pikebreath]

Originally Posted by wind drift

I think a banker would advise you that it, if your withdrawals exceed the interest on your account, the timing of withdrawals doesn’t matter. Your account will diminish. Using season closures to delay harvest, if potential harvest still exceeds supply, will fail. Season closures have been on the books for decades in Alberta. Despite that, fisheries collapsed.

I think this is a great case in point for why actual data matters. As anglers, we have lots of anecdotes, beliefs and ideas, and freely diagnose and prescribe solutions on their basis, but that might get blown out of the water when confronted by data.

I think it’s more useful for us to ask more questions than give more ‘answers’.

My $0.02.

Great analogy, wind drift,,,,

Thanks for putting the issue into proper perspective!

[mlee]

Originally Posted by Pikebreath

Great analogy, wind drift,,,,

Thanks for putting the issue into proper perspective!

Still flawed though. Using the same analogy lets say you earn a perdiam on your deposits....and during a certain time period that perdiam is compounded exponentially....then it would be wise to leave your deposits in the account during that time period and delay withdrawals to maximize return.

There's no right answer....I fish lakes where as an angler I believe some retention would definitely be beneficial to the overall health of the fishery....but I'm no bio....just a guy that likes to catch fish and maybe have a lunch every once in a while.

[wind drift]

Originally Posted by mlee

Still flawed though. Using the same analogy lets say you earn a perdiam on your deposits....and during a certain time period that perdiam is compounded exponentially....then it would be wise to leave your deposits in the account during that time period and delay withdrawals to maximize return.

There's no right answer....I fish lakes where as an angler I believe some retention would definitely be beneficial to the overall health of the fishery....but I'm no bio....just a guy that likes to catch fish and maybe have a lunch every once in a while.

However, again, if potential withdrawal exceeds supply, timing is irrelevant, despite efforts to optimize supply.

There is a right answer. Limit withdrawal to a level at or below total annual growth. Spend only the profits, accounting for variability and uncertainty in growth. Funny how we can accept this in financial terms, but struggle to accept it in biological context. Economics = eggonomics. Basically the same thing.

[MooseRiverTrapper]

Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck

And again, not a single answer why a conservation closure for all user groups from April 1 - May 15 would NOT be a benefit to walleye populations, which in turn, means more walleye for all user groups.

Didn't the SCC say that Conservation comes before Treaty?

If you do not like the answer, then change the question, is that the Government's approach?

Drewski

Absolutely. Why is it even a question?

[Mitchthefisher]

3 walleye between 15-20" in the north sask.. it is ridiculous how many are in that river, literally have days where a guy goes through 6-10 tubs of minnows on dinky 15" walleye makes no sense that a guy cannot keep even one.

[Kim473]

I would change the tag sizes. Class A , 2 over 55cm class B, 2 - 45 to 55 cm , class c 2 under 45 cm.

And make all other lakes keep 1 over 45 cm in the general regs.

Another thing I would do is C&R only, every second year on 1/2 the lakes then alternate the other 1/2 the following year. In a about 6 to 8 years I believe you would be able to increase limits slightly on most lakes. and in 10 or so years increase limits or size change or even both.

I would also stock more perch and feeder fish to all lakes to feed the walleye and pike better.

JMO.