Is SRD attempting to raise pygmy trout?

[Don Andersen]

Folks,

Some years ago I challenged SRD about the cruddy fishing in our tout lakes in the Rocky Area.
An agreement was made to fish the lake & take a sample of fish. Under permit, 10 anglers landed just over 100 trout in one morning. None of them were over 14" with the bulk under 9".

As a result SRD raised the stocking numbers for the lake by about 30%. Guess SRD is thinking anglers like pygmy trout.

Few use the lake. Summer usage may be as low as 1 angler/day. In the winter, the most I've seen maybe 20. Guess SRD never saw the movie "Build it and they will come".

Don

[nicemustang]

Pygmy trout? It may be that I am a little slow this morn or because I have a head cold....but you do you mean?

[Bigtoad]

I'm with you Don. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what to do to raise larger fish:
1. reduce stocking #'s
2. reduce # of large fish getting bonked (C&R or size limits)
3. reduce mortality (no bait, perhaps seasonal closures,etc)
4. aerate
5. grow a pair to actually do ALL of the above!!!

Yet SRD seems to just be content supplementing people's freezers with 5 fish 12" long. I don't get it...

Cheers

[Don Andersen]

Originally Posted by nicemustang

Pygmy trout? It may be that I am a little slow this morn or because I have a head cold....but you do you mean?

A quick glance @ a dictionary gets you:

"anything very small of its kind. "


Don

[nicemustang]

Yes I realize that now. How come everyone needs to only fish for BIG fish?

[Bigtoad]

Originally Posted by nicemustang

Yes I realize that now. How come everyone needs to only fish for BIG fish?

Because there is just SOOOOO little opportunity for it here in Alberta and SOOOO much opportunity to catch tons and tons of tiddlers.

It's like asking someone in the 3rd world, "Why would you want a cheeseburger, look at how much awesome rice we have!"

We're tired of rice...especially because we know we could have a cheeseburger if SRD would grow a pair.

cheers.

[goldscud]

I guess it depends if you fish for meat or for entertainment. For myself, the entertainment value of 5-9 inch trout in a lake is not very high. In fact, if that is all that is available, I won't even go there. I guess with age and growing skill level, I have a desire to seek out larger quarry. It would be great if there were more lakes available in Alberta where the percentage of fish over 18" was a significant part of the population. The government provides lots of put and take fisheries for families to enjoy. Hopefully, a few more lakes can be managed to provide quality fisheries for those who are seeking a better battle from their quarry.

[Dust1n]

im with it all the wayy with it but arnt they small little whitefish if so i would recomend them stalking them in numbers cause at that lengh they are very vonderable against predtors...pygmy trout? i think its pygmy whitefish?

[pope]

I do like the delayed harvest, low limits - but its obviously not an exact science. Seems "great" lakes like Beaver Lake become "good" lakes - the average size there has really dropped.

[goldscud]

Fish Hunter7, Don is just talking about SMALL (pygmy) trout...because they don't get a chance to grow. Not a certain breed or species of fish

[Dust1n]

oh because when i googled it it gave me small whitefish thanks for the clairifcation

[huntin'fool]

Originally Posted by Don Andersen

A quick glance @ a dictionary gets you:

"anything very small of its kind. "


Don

Too funny Don. How did they think this would accomplish anything???? Talked with fish bio in Edson and he completely understands the rediculous stocking rates and what needs to be done for quality fisheries.

[duffy4]

Don I am pretty sure I know the lake you are "talking" about. Here is a trio of trout I caught there one afternoon a few years ago. Even the smallest trout looks to be in good condition.




There are some "quality trout, delayed harvest, lunker fisheries" in the Rocky area and there are places where a lot of anglers can go and expect to catch some trout.

[Don Andersen]

Robin,

The lake was Struble, The maximum size that we encountered was about as large as your biggest one. 14". This lake raised fish to 14 lbs. When a group of us determined that the K factor [growth rate] was in the crapper, what did SRD do - are you ready for this - raised the stocking rates.

It's a crying shame how this and every other lake in the Rocky area have been treated.

As far as the other "LUNKER" lakes in the Rocky area. I'd suggest that you really take a look @ them. Beaver is now @ 3% of the fish over 20" whereas the Quality Policy says the minimum standard is 10%. In 2009, it was @ 15% and STD intends to do nothing to change the fall for several years.

Bear in mind how ridiculous the Quality Lake Policy is - it shoots for a 10>20% of the fish to be @ 1.5>2 lbs. The Provincial Record is 20 lbs. That means a SRD's definition of a Quality Lake is <10% of Provincial Record.
If Whitetails were managed like that, SRD would be hunted down and stretched over an ant hill.

Don

[michaelmicallef]

It's not always cut and dry as to why SRD continues to stock these guppy trout, but one thing is for sure. It's not so much about resource management in Alberta but people management. Lack of funding and man power will always result in the path of least resistance. Dump in some fish and call it good. But I notice K country gets alot of attention. Not even uncommon to get checked by 2 or 3 fish cops in a day out there. Just my two cents worth, maybe I am totally out to lunch.

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by Don Andersen

Robin,

The lake was Struble, The maximum size that we encountered was about as large as your biggest one. 14". This lake raised fish to 14 lbs. When a group of us determined that the K factor [growth rate] was in the crapper, what did SRD do - are you ready for this - raised the stocking rates.

It's a crying shame how this and every other lake in the Rocky area have been treated.

As far as the other "LUNKER" lakes in the Rocky area. I'd suggest that you really take a look @ them. Beaver is now @ 3% of the fish over 20" whereas the Quality Policy says the minimum standard is 10%. In 2009, it was @ 15% and STD intends to do nothing to change the fall for several years.

Bear in mind how ridiculous the Quality Lake Policy is - it shoots for a 10>20% of the fish to be @ 1.5>2 lbs. The Provincial Record is 20 lbs. That means a SRD's definition of a Quality Lake is <10% of Provincial Record.
If Whitetails were managed like that, SRD would be hunted down and stretched over an ant hill.

Don

It is a shame what is happening at Struble. I tell my son about the fish in there fifteen years ago and he calls BS. We have fished it many days and there is better quality fish in the Benalto trout pond.

Mitchell looked good for awhile after they started wintering over, but now there is just too much pressure. I see bag after bag of trout being taken every time I am there.

I believe the size of the stocked fish does nothing but create a breading ground for loons and others. I counted 6 loons on Mitchell one day. This is not natural, they are adapting to this large increase in small fish. Add to that the resident Oysprey and you might as well dump those fingerlings in the ditch somewhere.

After the stock the big fish go deep and take large streamers if they bite at all. They too adapt to the large number of small fish and become a preditor more like a pike than a trout IMO.

I have nothing against people taking fish to eat, but as the population has grown the lakes can't keep up. It is simple math and no matter how many fish you dump in this method is not going to work.

[209x50]

Study after study shows that the vast majority of Alberta Anglers just want to be able to catch and keep a fish. Size is unimportant, success and taking one home rated number one for ever. So majority rules, your only option for bigger trout is to go else where.

[duffy4]

MK2750

It is simple math and no matter how many fish you dump in this method is not going to work.

If you think that fisheries management is "simple math" than you are about as clued in as Don.


It is pretty complicated math for sure.

The number of anglers and angler hours goes up and they catch more fish. The use of new methods and technology has an effect on catch rates as well.

The number of bugs in the water will have an effect on growth rates of fish.
The number of fish after those bugs is important.
The number of predators is part of it.

Then there is the complicated question as to what kind of fishery is a lake managed for.

If F&W reduced stocking of Struble in order to try and increase the size of the trout, there would be a thread on here:

"What the heck is SRD doing at Struble lake, We can't get our limit there in two days of fishing. It used to be a great lake to go fishing with the family but not anymore."

[packhuntr]

While what you say is true Duffy, the idea of conservation in this century has been frought with hard roads. True outdoors folk are the easiest ones to get thinking in the right direction, and as proven, most everyone will climb aboard at the end of the day. Its about education. If our fisheries are in bad shape, and not just trout fisheries I might add, guaranteed, that last sentance of yours would be the reality on here, but its coming no matter, as the current management of some great fisheries is being found now to be sub-standard. Changing ideals takes abit of time

[Bigtoad]

Originally Posted by 209x50

Study after study shows that the vast majority of Alberta Anglers just want to be able to catch and keep a fish. Size is unimportant, success and taking one home rated number one for ever. So majority rules, your only option for bigger trout is to go else where.

Which studies are those specifically??? SRD just had a poll that showed that more and more people want more quality trout lakes in Alberta. I think you think that catch-and-keep is the silent majority but I'm beginning to think you're more the loud, obnoxious minority.

Again... which studies?

[Freedom55]

Originally Posted by Bigtoad

Which studies are those specifically??? SRD just had a poll that showed that more and more people want more quality trout lakes in Alberta. I think you think that catch-and-keep is the silent majority but I'm beginning to think you're more the loud, obnoxious minority.

Again... which studies?

Indeed. Publish a link to those studies that back your play.

Not to point to fine a point on it mr. bigtoad, but I believe you should study in detail the arguments presented by Sundancefisher, et al, on this very topic not two months ago. He used similar tactics, particularly the name calling and belittling of his opponents, and tried very hard to present almost the same argument that you are making now with your desire to "improve" the fisheries in Alberta.

Go back and read through all that verbal diarrhea before you continue. If what you are seeking is different from what he was running with, then by all means continue your debate. Maybe you can come up with some better and more convincing ideas. Or, perhaps, you will find a way to improve your style of oration by seeing how that fellow managed to alienate most of his audience.

That debate, at least according to the data presented by the proponents, resulted in a total of some three hundred signatures on a petition presented to the province on behalf of the small crowd that want the same as you. If that is the poll that you are refering to, then those are small numbers! Some of those that petitioned in favor of changes to the regulations admitted to being non-anglers and were encouraged to do so by the meanderings of someone with an elitist mandate.

You are talking about Alberta, fella. Land of the biggest sky and the fewest lakes in the country, and probably the biggest population of people from away who come here plunder the place and tell us " rubes" what would be good for us before shuffling off to a better place to live (not that any of us here on this forum are one of those except maybe the guy who suggests that 'it is only Alberta guys so take it for all it is worth'). There are more lakes within 250 kms of Saskatoon than there is in all of Alberta. Been that way for centuries. Comparing Alberta with the parklands of Manitoba is roughly akin to holding a cheeseburger up against a porterhouse, so please do us a great service and research this topic a little further as I suggested.

[packhuntr]

If you believe what you say is true in your last paragraph Freedom55, then you will also admit it prudent to realize a sence of urgency, and that if there was a time to act, it would be now? Or, should we just continue to rape the province, and complain in the not so distant future that someone should have been more proactive? And really, who's at fault then? Now before you get going about how Im talking in extremes, maybe I am, then again maybe not? I agree with a whole bunch that some of these guys are saying,,, why wouldnt you? Have you been watching what has been happening in the last 20 years?

[Bigtoad]

Originally Posted by Freedom55

Indeed. Publish a link to those studies that back your play.

Not to point to fine a point on it mr. bigtoad, but I believe you should study in detail the arguments presented by Sundancefisher, et al, on this very topic not two months ago. He used similar tactics, particularly the name calling and belittling of his opponents, and tried very hard to present almost the same argument that you are making now with your desire to "improve" the fisheries in Alberta.

Go back and read through all that verbal diarrhea before you continue. If what you are seeking is different from what he was running with, then by all means continue your debate. Maybe you can come up with some better and more convincing ideas. Or, perhaps, you will find a way to improve your style of oration by seeing how that fellow managed to alienate most of his audience.

That debate, at least according to the data presented by the proponents, resulted in a total of some three hundred signatures on a petition presented to the province on behalf of the small crowd that want the same as you. If that is the poll that you are refering to, then those are small numbers! Some of those that petitioned in favor of changes to the regulations admitted to being non-anglers and were encouraged to do so by the meanderings of someone with an elitist mandate.

Well said, and I understand where you're coming from, I think. I'll try to keep namecalling out of it but it really makes it a lot more fun Didn't mean to belittle anyone...

I believe Sundancefisher was trying to get signatures for changes on the K lakes? This is not the poll I am referring to. I've tried looking for the one that I was describing and can't find it. If anyone knows if they published these results online, please post link.

Basically, SRD asked people to take an online survey and describe what type of fishing experience they wanted. I believe it was specifically regarding stillwater trout fishing but it was several months ago and I can't remember the specifics. I did take the poll though. The outcome was that there was a "growing trend" of individuals who want more quality fishing opportunities in Alberta. I don't know if that was the majority of voters but there was definitely a large contingency that valued quality over quantity.

If someone has #'s from another resent study I'd love to see them. I'm just saying that I think that what once was a majority of people wanting put and take, is being replaced with a growing crowd that sees increased benefit in delayed harvest.

You are talking about Alberta, fella.

Hey, watch the name calling buster!

Land of the biggest sky and the fewest lakes in the country, and probably the biggest population of people from away who come here plunder the place and tell us " rubes" what would be good for us before shuffling off to a better place to live (not that any of us here on this forum are one of those except maybe the guy who suggests that 'it is only Alberta guys so take it for all it is worth'). There are more lakes within 250 kms of Saskatoon than there is in all of Alberta. Been that way for centuries.

Isn't this more fuel for the fire of better regulations? We don't have the number of lakes of B.C., Sask, or Manitoba so we better make sure we get the ones we do have right? There is going to be more pressure here so we need regulations that can sustain that pressure. Right now, we have regulations that sustain nothing but more and more stocking.

Comparing Alberta with the parklands of Manitoba is roughly akin to holding a cheeseburger up against a porterhouse, so please do us a great service and research this topic a little further as I suggested.

I agree with your analogy, but disagree that it has to be that way. We may not ever be able to be a porterhouse but we could be the best cheeseburger you've ever tasted. Right now, we make McDonalds look good.

I'm not sure what you'd like me to research Freedom55?
-There are roughly 300 stocked trout lakes in this province. Less than 10 of those have regs for "quality" fisheries.
-Many of those that are labeled ""quality" are falling short of the 10% fish over 20".
-Many bodies of water capable of growing trout over 20" still allow a 5 fish limit and won't be holding many of that size for much longer as pressure increases.
-As the population continues to grow and the internet and GoogleEarth continue to play their part, the few remaining isolated and unknown lakes that do hold large trout will neither be isolated or unknown but outfished.

What did I miss? (And all of that with only one namecall... I'm making progress!)

Cheers.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Bigtoad

Which studies are those specifically??? SRD just had a poll that showed that more and more people want more quality trout lakes in Alberta. I think you think that catch-and-keep is the silent majority but I'm beginning to think you're more the loud, obnoxious minority.

Again... which studies?

Maybe a little over the top in response to a simple comment? What do you think?

[huntin'fool]

Originally Posted by duffy4

MK2750

It is simple math and no matter how many fish you dump in this method is not going to work.

If you think that fisheries management is "simple math" than you are about as clued in as Don.


It is pretty complicated math for sure.

The number of anglers and angler hours goes up and they catch more fish. The use of new methods and technology has an effect on catch rates as well.

The number of bugs in the water will have an effect on growth rates of fish.
The number of fish after those bugs is important.
The number of predators is part of it.

Then there is the complicated question as to what kind of fishery is a lake managed for.

If F&W reduced stocking of Struble in order to try and increase the size of the trout, there would be a thread on here:

"What the heck is SRD doing at Struble lake, We can't get our limit there in two days of fishing. It used to be a great lake to go fishing with the family but not anymore."

Strange post, Robin.

You seem to insinuate that "everyone" would be disappointed in the loss of a "put and take - catch your limit" lake being replaced with a lake which produces much less although bigger trout at a lower harvest limit. None of us want to get rid of all "dinker trout lakes" - there is a place for those lakes for people such as yourself. However, it is evident that not "everyone" wants to go out and fish for, and retain "their God given allowance" of five of the poor calibre of fish you displayed in your photo.

A little common sense and diversity is all we're calling for....otherwise, no one would be engaging in this discussion.

[Dust1n]

Originally Posted by duffy4

Don I am pretty sure I know the lake you are "talking" about. Here is a trio of trout I caught there one afternoon a few years ago. Even the smallest trout looks to be in good condition.




There are some "quality trout, delayed harvest, lunker fisheries" in the Rocky area and there are places where a lot of anglers can go and expect to catch some trout.

Strubal lake Bows?

[duffy4]

Yes they are Struble lake rainbows. But apparently they are "poor caliber"

And this post started out talking about Struble lake. A place where lots of people go to enjoy fishing for stocked trout. Men women and children all having a good time fishing. Good on you F&W for providing this kind of recreational opportunity.

Anglers who want to have a chance to catch bigger stocked rainbows can go to Beaver Lake. If they want to catch bigger fish than that they can go somewhere else.

Trying to change things at Struble may not be a good thing.

[Chris K]

Don, it is very sad, but in governments eyes, they are far more concerned about catch rates than quality of catch. They think that if people are catching lots of fish, it is good fishing. I am getting very sick of seeing our lakes being ruined by the management practices and decisions that are being made. If the trout lakes make you sick, then you can only imagine how I feel about the walleye situation in so many of our northern lakes in this province!

Chris K

[MK2750]

Originally Posted by duffy4

Yes they are Struble lake rainbows. But apparently they are "poor caliber"

And this post started out talking about Struble lake. A place where lots of people go to enjoy fishing for stocked trout. Men women and children all having a good time fishing. Good on you F&W for providing this kind of recreational opportunity.

Anglers who want to have a chance to catch bigger stocked rainbows can go to Beaver Lake. If they want to catch bigger fish than that they can go somewhere else.

Trying to change things at Struble may not be a good thing.

So using your logic if the population of RMH grows to 100,000 and 1000 families want to have a nice experience on the water nothing should change?

You would need a weekly restock.

Why not just go buy a can of sardines and be done with it.

[Don Andersen]

What Robin and certainly SRD don't seem to understand is the lack of pressure at the lakes they manage as kill fisheries. What must be understood is that SRD basically destroyed the lakes in the Rocky area through the selection of management options.
Have asked SRD many times to take a trip by Struble in the summer and look @ the number of people there. In the 10 trips I've made in the summer over the past 3 years, the total # of anglers seen is less than 15. The most # of fishermen was last weekend @ 15. If you look @ the stocking #'s - this realizes a angler for every 5200 fish where as on a typical day @ Mitchell 1 angler/1000 fish or Beaver for 1 angler for 800 fish. SRD doesn't get the concept of built it and they will come.
But Robin, you put up a fine defense for your prospective employer.
It's truly unfortunate that you didn't get a chance to fish Struble when there were decent fish in there. Oh, I get it - you think that a 14" is a trophy. Least you're following the "company" line.

Don