Draft Policy out on Fish Stocking

[Don Andersen]

Folks,



See: http://esrd.alberta....Jul-21-2014.pdf



Several things concern me:



1] only local stakeholders will have input [ Cardston counts - Calgary doens't on Police or Medicine Hat on Bullshead or Caroline on Beaver]]

2] only lakes with facilties will be stocked [ there goes the high mtn stuff]

3] only the local bio. formulates the plan.[ get a dud for a bio. and be prepared for complete f*****up]



A lot of stuff in this thing needs changed. Piece of crap @ this point.





Don

[Flieguy]

link isn't working for me Don,

but if your points are correct then this is a crock of bull! a LOT of nice fisheries have no facilities...

the other stuff concerns me as well, could be a downward trend in our already marginal program

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Don Andersen

1] only local stakeholders will have input [ Cardston counts - Calgary doens't on Police or Medicine Hat on Bullshead or Caroline on Beaver]]

After the Trout Unlimited gong show calling on all of their membership province wide to vote on what happens at Police Lake, I think that this is prudent to do. There's no way that fly tiers from halfway across the province should have a say about a body of water that they'll never see.

Maybe enough of us complained about those kind of tactics that they listened.

[AlbertaCutthroat]

Fisherman better get vocal on this! I understand we may lose a few golden trout fisheries as certain area managers no longer want anything non-native stocked/ relocated even if populations slide.

[spinN'flyfish]

that REALLY sucks i hope it will change

[pikergolf]

Can you please fix the link Don.

Never mind.
http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife...ul-21-2014.pdf

[Taco]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

After the Trout Unlimited gong show calling on all of their membership province wide to vote on what happens at Police Lake, I think that this is prudent to do. There's no way that fly tiers from halfway across the province should have a say about a body of water that they'll never see.

Maybe enough of us complained about those kind of tactics that they listened.

Remind me again how that works when Alberta's huntin' draw system comes up for review....

[Don Andersen]

I've watched Govt for years throw little geographic circles around issues. What they forget is the PUBLIC owned resources are owned by all and therefore input into the issues should be available to all!
The words "directly effected" are hated by anyone who gives a crap about how Alberta's money or resources are spent.

Don

[Don Andersen]

Piker,

Thanx for fixing the link.

Don

[Don Andersen]

In the interest of saving time there are two sections that really **** me off.
1) page 4 under Primary Objective the definition ends C&R angling
2) page 6 - middle of the page "in general there will be no stocking of" all the bullets below have some issues.

Don

[spinN'flyfish]

Originally Posted by Don Andersen

I've watched Govt for years throw little geographic circles around issues. What they forget is the PUBLIC owned resources are owned by all and therefore input into the issues should be available to all!
The words "directly effected" are hated by anyone who gives a crap about how Alberta's money or resources are spent.

Don

we paid for the licenses so we should deserve the public water bodies to be stocked by the government organizations with that 1.00 of the cost, this is just pathetic

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by spinN'flyfish

we paid for the licenses so we should deserve the public water bodies to be stocked by the government organizations with that 1.00 of the cost, this is just pathetic

That's one way to rationalize wanting to have a say in what happens in lakes that you will never visit let alone wet a line in. I saw what the province wide membership of Trout Unlimited did with Police Lake by rallying together in order to skew the vote. For that reason I agree that the future of any lake should be left up to the actual users (stakeholders), not by a group of people that will never fish there.

Right now TU is quietly advocating changing Dolberg Lake into a "quality" fishery and IMO, there's no bloody way that a group of TU members in Lethbridge should have a say in what happens to a lake that I fish in.

I think that ESRD has figured it out and got that part right.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Taco

Remind me again how that works when Alberta's huntin' draw system comes up for review....

Worry about what happens in the wmu's that you hunt in and others will worry about what happens in the wmu's that they hunt in.

If the stakeholders that hunt any given wmu want something different from what you want for the wmu that you hunt in, how is that any of your business?

[Bigtoad]

Easily remedied by having a province-wide poll on specific lakes and on that poll, one of the Q's is something like, "How often do you fish Lake X, per year?" Those that fish it more often will have be weighted more than those that do not.

This way, the "true" stakeholders have more of a voice and it weeds out local people who never fish it as well as those that live across the province and never fish it.

Cheers,

[Taco]

Yeah right Dave now I get it..

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Bigtoad

Easily remedied by having a province-wide poll on specific lakes and on that poll, one of the Q's is something like, "How often do you fish Lake X, per year?" Those that fish it more often will have be weighted more than those that do not.

This way, the "true" stakeholders have more of a voice and it weeds out local people who never fish it as well as those that live across the province and never fish it.

Cheers,

That's a great idea if you believe that people would have integrity. Unfortunately, TU members from Edmonton will throw their support behind special regs for Police Lake and in return TU members from Lethbridge will throw their support behind special regs for Dolberg Lake. That's exactly what is happening right now. I think that ESRD is aware of it and wants to ensure that it stops from happening. Thus the requirement for having only local stakeholders having input.......and I agree with it 100%.

[pikergolf]

I think the province is well aware how far people travel to fish QF's. The one from MH gets close to half it's traffic from Lethbridge and Calgary, 250 and 400 km. respectively. They do a yearly creel survey and know all this stuff.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Taco

Remind me again how that works when Alberta's huntin' draw system comes up for review....

X2

[tallieho]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

After the Trout Unlimited gong show calling on all of their membership province wide to vote on what happens at Police Lake, I think that this is prudent to do. There's no way that fly tiers from halfway across the province should have a say about a body of water that they'll never see.

Maybe enough of us complained about those kind of tactics that they listened.

So i guess if we live in Calgary,where i might add has NO lake suitable for stocking .We can't have a say in fisheries in the province.Where are you from ,some backwoods,bacKward country.Wake up sunshine.I for one have probably fished this year 14 days at Police,8 times at Beaver.I generally spend sometime down at BH,but as yet i havenot been there.I travel,to where big fish are present,where reg's allow for the fullest potential of a fish,to mature.Not a whack & stack fishery.I also travel to Manitoba 2 times a year,spending 14-20 days there.Bc is another haunt.I go to these fisheries because of like minded fishers,are trying to develop a fishery.That perhaps may bring in like minded fishers from all over the world.Oh & one more thing last i checked i buy a licence to fish in ALBERTA,BC,MB....

[smitty9]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

That's a great idea if you believe that people would have integrity. Unfortunately, TU members from Edmonton will throw their support behind special regs for Police Lake and in return TU members from Lethbridge will throw their support behind special regs for Dolberg Lake. That's exactly what is happening right now. I think that ESRD is aware of it and wants to ensure that it stops from happening. Thus the requirement for having only local stakeholders having input.......and I agree with it 100%.

Well bully for you.

1. Part of my tax dollars pays for the stocking. I am de facto stake holder in every waterbody that is stocked.

2. Many do plan on fishing waterbodies located far away from home. It would be nice to have the freedom of choice when travelling to fish a lake where they - on average - grown bigger than 10 inches with the QSF regulations to reflect the demand for bigger fish. Is it really far too much to ask to have 2-3 QSF choices in the various regions of the province? Yeah - I guess it is...we're just so demanding eh? lol

3. I have dual monitors on my desktop; as I type this, I am looking at the 2014 stocking report; fairly typical of the last 5 years. Dozens and dozens of put and take lakes on that list. Plenty of lakes to CHOOSE from for the 5/day catch and keep types. Plenty!

And yet ironically, HunterDave, Muir is not just hugely popular with the trophy pursuing C&R types, the folks that like to take a (as in one) fish go there too. Gee...could it be...because that Muir has bigger fish?

There is more than enough demand for QSF located near Edmonton and Calgary. It's good that they're considering Dolberg. Variety is not a bad thing, but apparently you have lots of issues with it.

Arguing against having more than a few QSF in the province is pretty selfish, in my opinion, and very NIMBY.

Smitty

[pipco]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

That's a great idea if you believe that people would have integrity. Unfortunately, TU members from Edmonton will throw their support behind special regs for Police Lake and in return TU members from Lethbridge will throw their support behind special regs for Dolberg Lake. That's exactly what is happening right now. I think that ESRD is aware of it and wants to ensure that it stops from happening. Thus the requirement for having only local stakeholders having input.......and I agree with it 100%.

Here we go again!

Why in the world would anyone want a "quality" fishery when there are so many mediocre to poor lakes to fish?

Sheesh!

[tallieho]

Just some info.In case you would like to talk with the 3 guys listed at the end of the draft.....Call 403 310-000 govt free telephone line tell the operator who you wish to speak with...

[dbllung]

From what I can see certain "individuals" don't like being told that they can't kill everything they catch. A sort of anti authority vigilante that fights the imposition of any rule on them personally , without regard for what the rest of the populous thinks!!
Nothing wrong with a few quality managed fisheries to go with the rest of the minnow ponds we have here!!! The reason most of us fly fishers leave the province a couple times a year!!

[pikergolf]

In my mind the whack and stack lakes should become a lot rarer and QF a lot more common. A 50/50 split would be nice, then they can stock in the whack and stack every month.

[Don Andersen]

In contrast with Alberta's efforts I fished the Caribou region of BC this past June. A local angler who fished with me told me that there were <>800 lakes in the Caribou angling region of which 450 were regulated for larger fish.
In Alberta were have Muir, Ironside, Beaver, Bullshead and Police + some high mtn. stuff where special regulations aid in raising larger fish.There are over 600 lakes stocked in Alberta by ESRD or the ACA.
And we have the Govt proposing a end run around the Quality Lake Policy through the revision to the stocking Policy.
Govt - gotta love èm.

Don

[fish gunner]

Majority rule sorry . I would love to see a 60/40 split on c&r vs p&t however I understand I am in the minority. Of course suggesting successful Ideas from any where but alberta is wasted. BC 'stocking program should be taken into consideration ideally with native species imo. Then again where do our licence dollars go.......