Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fishing Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #211  
Old 11-09-2011, 12:46 AM
crestliner crestliner is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 14
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gl2 View Post
FACT: HARASSING SPAWNING FISH IS A PROBLEM. I dont care if its from a weekend warrior or a tourney vet its wrong, plain and simple.

I have been searching the internet and have read some interesting pdf files on how some other places run there waters and how they manage the resource. I know that some wont apply to alberta waters as different places have to deal with different problems and have different challenges. I did find a pretty common theme in most places such as minnesota, ontario and michigan. Protect, develop, maintain and restore critical habitats for natural stocks of walleye. I would say this fits right in with the problem occurring on traverse. To me protect doesn't mean getting my gear out and chasing them all over there spawning grounds.

There were also some other ways that other places implemented special regulations to preserve there fish and habitats. i.e. slot limits, banning early season night time fishing,reduce possession limits and banning boats from tearing up spawning grounds. I know the boat one would be tricky as the launch sits in the middle of prime spawning ground but with the closure no boat should need be up the west arm further than the launch. There were also some things that don't need regulation changes and would cost nothing like keeping the lake free and clear of garbage ( especially in spawning grounds ) so by doing something so small as not leaving your cra* on the ice in the winter and lugging your trash out the rest of the time will help walleye have a more successful spawn. just thought i would share some of the stuff i have been reading on the net....
Very good post we can't let the true reason for this get lost, it all still comes down the the protection of the fishery. It would be interesting to see some of the other states and provinces have come to deal with similar problems.
Thank you
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 11-09-2011, 06:39 AM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

To those that are "unhappy" with WU or SAWT. What have you done prior to this thread for the situation at Travers? I bet many only just discovered there was a problem or issue. Were you involved in the past changes to get the river closure? I bet not!

I have tried to bring up points that were either ridiculed or ignored and virtually all of my questions went unaswered(though some of my questions were ment to make you think about a point). Most of those that are not hearing, deserve no answers.

That was not directed at Chubbdarter!

PS Dan, you are beating a dead horse
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 11-09-2011, 07:55 AM
Winch101 Winch101 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Okotoks wilderness
Posts: 4,420
Default No Problem

You wont get an answer because there is no problem

This fishery is not in any jeopardy , doesnt need protection

maybe only from poachers .... The people who think there

is a problem have no formal education to back these thoughts up.

no degree in biology , ichtology.... etc. just speculation

and personal if albeit somewhat selfish agendas . I think the " Wearing two hats " question has some validity .

I base my info on the fact that you can catch 50 to 100 walleyes a day there mostly not legal size ....yet...doesnt look or sound like a lake in crisis to me ...If you have 80 boats at these tourneys ...70 are in that creek pounding it out , a little intense so just close it for the tourneys .....

All this situation shows me that in Alberta these factless crusades
particularly in natural resources are a problem and bring pressure to bear on
hapless Govt employees and do affect sound reasoning and judgement..
example Ted Morton and Hunting...
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 11-09-2011, 08:21 AM
iliketrout's Avatar
iliketrout iliketrout is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,797
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winch101 View Post
You wont get an answer because there is no problem

This fishery is not in any jeopardy , doesnt need protection

maybe only from poachers .... The people who think there

is a problem have no formal education to back these thoughts up.

no degree in biology , ichtology.... etc. just speculation

and personal if albeit somewhat selfish agendas . I think the " Wearing two hats " question has some validity .

I base my info on the fact that you can catch 50 to 100 walleyes a day there mostly not legal size ....yet...doesnt look or sound like a lake in crisis to me ...If you have 80 boats at these tourneys ...70 are in that creek pounding it out , a little intense so just close it for the tourneys .....

All this situation shows me that in Alberta these factless crusades
particularly in natural resources are a problem and bring pressure to bear on
hapless Govt employees and do affect sound reasoning and judgement..
example Ted Morton and Hunting...
W101, that's the point. It is a healthy fishery and it should stay that way. As has been already posted on this thread, the Travers tourney date has been progressively getting earlier and earlier. Just from the SAWT website, you can pull out the dates from past tourneys.

June 17-18, 2006
June 16-17, 2007
June 14-15, 2008
June 13-14, 2009
May 15-16, 2010
May 28-29, 2011

As has been stated this is through no fault of SAWT as they are given the date when they get a license. The problem is that we have had a late spawn the last couple of years, and an early tournament which has many knowledgeable and skilled fisherman who have forgot more about Walleye fishing than many of us will ever know. So it's a perfect storm of guys who know how and when to catch fish, catching as many fish as possible, during their post-spawn recovery period.

So the fact that it may be a healthy fishery today does not mean that it won't be a healthy fishery in a couple of years if nothing is done to protect the vulnerable fish.

Do you have a degree in biology? Even if you do, have you done the amount of the data collection, test netting etc. that would be required to formulate an "educated" opinion on the fishery? If you answered no to any of the previous questions, then your opinion that there is no problem is no less speculation than any of the other opinions on here stating that there is a problem.

The fact that a regulation change is coming is enough proof to me that there is a problem.
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 11-09-2011, 09:01 AM
TyreeUM's Avatar
TyreeUM TyreeUM is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Posts: 1,353
Default

if someone has a report from this area I would be happy to look at it and give a second opinion. Just putting it out there.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 11-09-2011, 09:13 AM
Dan Foss Dan Foss is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gl2 View Post
FACT: HARASSING SPAWNING FISH IS A PROBLEM. I dont care if its from a weekend warrior or a tourney vet its wrong, plain and simple.

I have been searching the internet and have read some interesting pdf files on how some other places run there waters and how they manage the resource. I know that some wont apply to alberta waters as different places have to deal with different problems and have different challenges. I did find a pretty common theme in most places such as minnesota, ontario and michigan. Protect, develop, maintain and restore critical habitats for natural stocks of walleye. I would say this fits right in with the problem occurring on traverse. To me protect doesn't mean getting my gear out and chasing them all over there spawning grounds.

There were also some other ways that other places implemented special regulations to preserve there fish and habitats. i.e. slot limits, banning early season night time fishing,reduce possession limits and banning boats from tearing up spawning grounds. I know the boat one would be tricky as the launch sits in the middle of prime spawning ground but with the closure no boat should need be up the west arm further than the launch. There were also some things that don't need regulation changes and would cost nothing like keeping the lake free and clear of garbage ( especially in spawning grounds ) so by doing something so small as not leaving your cra* on the ice in the winter and lugging your trash out the rest of the time will help walleye have a more successful spawn. just thought i would share some of the stuff i have been reading on the net....
This is a very good post. And I fully agree with everything you propose here. The little things can sometimes make the biggest impact. Good post.


For the boat one, i would say pull a string of bouys across the lake just on the west side of the docks. Big bouys on a thick steel cable. done.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 11-09-2011, 09:23 AM
Dan Foss Dan Foss is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iliketrout View Post
W101, that's the point. It is a healthy fishery and it should stay that way. As has been already posted on this thread, the Travers tourney date has been progressively getting earlier and earlier. Just from the SAWT website, you can pull out the dates from past tourneys.

June 17-18, 2006
June 16-17, 2007
June 14-15, 2008
June 13-14, 2009
May 15-16, 2010
May 28-29, 2011

As has been stated this is through no fault of SAWT as they are given the date when they get a license. The problem is that we have had a late spawn the last couple of years, and an early tournament which has many knowledgeable and skilled fisherman who have forgot more about Walleye fishing than many of us will ever know. So it's a perfect storm of guys who know how and when to catch fish, catching as many fish as possible, during their post-spawn recovery period.

So the fact that it may be a healthy fishery today does not mean that it won't be a healthy fishery in a couple of years if nothing is done to protect the vulnerable fish.

Do you have a degree in biology? Even if you do, have you done the amount of the data collection, test netting etc. that would be required to formulate an "educated" opinion on the fishery? If you answered no to any of the previous questions, then your opinion that there is no problem is no less speculation than any of the other opinions on here stating that there is a problem.

The fact that a regulation change is coming is enough proof to me that there is a problem.

Another good post. It is concerning that the tournament dates are being pushed close and close to overlaping the spawn season (through now fault of the SAWT). Which is weird because the reason why the licences are being pushed is because the gov. bios issuing the licences say it is because of water temps. They dont want the tourneys happening in summer when higher water temps in livewells and stuff stress the fish...... forcing the tourneys to overlap post spawn seems like a step in the wrong direction IMO.

anyways very good post. But I would like to just quickly say that IMO, just because regs are changing doesnt mean the fishery is in jeopardy. Alberta SRD does have a history of making mistakes with regs and not always in best interest of the fishery. PCR for example, I would not call that a healthy fishery IMO. To me, saying because the regs are changing that means there is a problem is like saying I am stocking up on TP and canned corn because a commercial told me the world is going to end. one of those dont believe everything someone tells you type of thing.

Is the fishery in jeopardy? Maybe. Personally I wouldn't say it currently is, yet. But I think if it is not monitored and taken care of that it very well could be in years to come. I think the reg changes are not to rescue a fishery in trouble but to protect it for future and to ensure that the quality fishery does not decline
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 11-09-2011, 10:19 AM
MoFugger21's Avatar
MoFugger21 MoFugger21 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 1,777
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Foss View Post
No i did not intend to mean the prisoners run the asylum so to speak. However the SAWT is still a form of a business. Have to keep the people investing happy or else they will stop coming. I know the SAWT is not legally allowed to retain money on a yearly turn over basis and they do everything they can to give the best return to those competing. If angler attendance drops, return drops which inturn will once again decrease angler attendance. As to why it isn't so simple as saying "were closing ....."? That is a very very good question. but As I said I bet you it is anything but simple............



I understand your logic and reasoning. However, I do not recall anywhere in this thread nor on the WU website nor on the SAWT website does it state that as organizations, they are at all in any way affiliated/aligned/or partnering in any way. The president may be the same person, but that does not mean the organizations are in line. One board of directors may believe one thing and the other may believe something completely different. That doesn't mean the president and two sided. He may argue the same point to both boards and get mixed results. These clubs are not totalitarian ruled. One man cannot define a groups beliefs and the beliefs of a group definitely should not implicate the beliefs of an individual. As I said to horse, you do not know what actions the president may or may not have taken towards setting boundaries for the tournament.


As mentioned above, 1. when all is said and done it may come down to a numbers game. maybe they surveyed a group of anglers and they said they would rather goto the NAWT that weekend if the arm was closed. who knows. I dont. or maybe the pres. had a crucial part on his death star to work on.......I would like to believe all fishermen are very moral people who believe in the greater good and are clean and fair individuals. but sadly as in society that is not always the case. Just look at all the BS that happened with the vanity tournament and how desperate people were in order to try to cheat or give themselves an edge.

People have different beliefs. and those beliefs arn't wrong. I have kept a travers fish that was over 50cm (may god have mercy on my soul.)...... And I will probably do it again some day when I get the itch for walleye cheeks (oh lordy the devil must be waiting for my soul)........ It is my legal right to keep one so long as I fish within the regulations imposed by the government. There are even tournament anglers in this argument that have voiced their opinions; some landing on both sides of this debate. So to say everyone would unanimously follow what someone tells them is the greater good is the stuff you wash hogs with. Some may debate what the greater good actually is. some may debate the facts. some may debate for their own self interest.


All I am trying to say is we as common keyboard warriors do not know all the facts. It is unfair for us to sit here and judge others when we are missing these crucial facts. All my posts are intended to do apply a side that may not be seen by us common folk. I do not know all the side or all the stories. but I will reserve my judgement and ultimately my prosecution of others unless I know 100% of the TRUE facts.

This is fair enough. I understand that if you don't keep the anglers coming back, there won't be a tournament trail in the future. And as I said in a previous post, I don't know the inner workings of SAWT or WU, so I don't know what happens or is decided or talked about behind closed doors.

And look, I'm not trying to drag SAWT or WU "through the mud", as some on here have alluded to, it would just be nice to hear how and why certain decisions were made. Questions such as: 'why didn't SAWT close down the west arm in previous tournaments?', or 'why the decision to push for a closure to the west arm, and not a longer closure for the whole lake?". I get that these answers may never be answered, or at least answered on here, its just frustrating, cause as you have said, none of us have any facts on the situation.

And it is definitely possible the president of SAWT tried to push for a closure during the tournament, and was shot down by what ever governing body they have. And it may have been unfair to associate the 2 organizations as if they were one, but you have to appreciate how the whole situation looks to an outsider, and how the situation looks like a conflict of interest. It just seems weird to me that 2 associations with the same president wouldn't try to somehow work together, or try to push similiar agendas.

And this brings me back to one of the questions above, "why is the push for the closure only to the west arm, and not the whole lake?" As has been discussed previously there are many different spawning grounds for walleye in Travers, and if the main reason for closure is to protect spawning walleye, why pin point only the west arm? Surely the other spawning grounds would benefit from a longer closure too. Is the push for the west arm closure because if the closure was instituted to whole lake it would fall on the dates of the SAWT tourny in Travers? And by pushing for only a west arm closure, the SAWT would still be able to hold their tournament in the open part of the lake in mid to late May? (Let me be clear, these are not accusation questions, but merely probing questions to better understand the why of this whole process. I have no information or facts to substantiate these questions, I'm more so just curious)
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 11-09-2011, 10:20 AM
MoFugger21's Avatar
MoFugger21 MoFugger21 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 1,777
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
To those that are "unhappy" with WU or SAWT. What have you done prior to this thread for the situation at Travers? I bet many only just discovered there was a problem or issue. Were you involved in the past changes to get the river closure? I bet not!

I have tried to bring up points that were either ridiculed or ignored and virtually all of my questions went unaswered(though some of my questions were ment to make you think about a point). Most of those that are not hearing, deserve no answers.

That was not directed at Chubbdarter!

PS Dan, you are beating a dead horse

Instead of beating around the bush, why don't you actually call out who you are aiming this post at....?

And I thought you weren't posthing in this thread anymore?
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 11-09-2011, 10:22 AM
MoFugger21's Avatar
MoFugger21 MoFugger21 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 1,777
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TyreeUM View Post
if someone has a report from this area I would be happy to look at it and give a second opinion. Just putting it out there.
I think this is part of the problem... I don't believe there is a report of the area to actually look at.
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 11-09-2011, 10:49 AM
Gust Gust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
[/COLOR]

Well all that could be assummed is that what you posted was FACT.....Half isnt excately a vague word....no one would take your post as a lie.
So are you quilty of your own in RED statement?
It's an interesting freudian slip; Quilty was the antagnonist in Nabukovs book Lolita,, a trickster who knew the truth and donned many hats to drive the protagonist Humbert mad with paranoia to divulge the truth.

This thread is worthy of a Le Carre spy novel. Am I missing something here,, a regulation is going to happen and some are upset that they can't fish a section of an enormous lake. Some are mad that a dock will be closed, and others mad that it may become harder to target fish in their tourny? So what,, to the dockers, go elsewhere,,, to the tourners, go master your skills elsewhere, your pro's, it shouldn't be a problem.

Typically, regs are put in place for a benefit,, it did wonders for the Bow and other streams. Regardless of netting and electro shock studies, why can't the reg changes just be accepted?

What's the complaint? and yes I get it WU/SAWT, bla-bla-bla, conflict but what I don't get is how a handful of fisherfolk be them from boats or shore have a complaint or enough of a selfish complaint to try and block a protective measure.

In fact, I've been bummed by some closures and one happened while I lived elsewhere for many years and after I got back to Alberta and fished the area after it reopened discovered an AWESOME FISHERY even better than the awesome one it was before the reg change.

Odd thread.

Last edited by Gust; 11-09-2011 at 10:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 11-09-2011, 11:00 AM
Dan Foss Dan Foss is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoFugger21 View Post
This is fair enough. I understand that if you don't keep the anglers coming back, there won't be a tournament trail in the future. And as I said in a previous post, I don't know the inner workings of SAWT or WU, so I don't know what happens or is decided or talked about behind closed doors.

And look, I'm not trying to drag SAWT or WU "through the mud", as some on here have alluded to, it would just be nice to hear how and why certain decisions were made. Questions such as: 'why didn't SAWT close down the west arm in previous tournaments?', or 'why the decision to push for a closure to the west arm, and not a longer closure for the whole lake?". I get that these answers may never be answered, or at least answered on here, its just frustrating, cause as you have said, none of us have any facts on the situation.

And it is definitely possible the president of SAWT tried to push for a closure during the tournament, and was shot down by what ever governing body they have. And it may have been unfair to associate the 2 organizations as if they were one, but you have to appreciate how the whole situation looks to an outsider, and how the situation looks like a conflict of interest. It just seems weird to me that 2 associations with the same president wouldn't try to somehow work together, or try to push similiar agendas.

And this brings me back to one of the questions above, "why is the push for the closure only to the west arm, and not the whole lake?" As has been discussed previously there are many different spawning grounds for walleye in Travers, and if the main reason for closure is to protect spawning walleye, why pin point only the west arm? Surely the other spawning grounds would benefit from a longer closure too. Is the push for the west arm closure because if the closure was instituted to whole lake it would fall on the dates of the SAWT tourny in Travers? And by pushing for only a west arm closure, the SAWT would still be able to hold their tournament in the open part of the lake in mid to late May? (Let me be clear, these are not accusation questions, but merely probing questions to better understand the why of this whole process. I have no information or facts to substantiate these questions, I'm more so just curious)
All very good questions that I would also like to know the answer to all of them. I believe that questions formatted in this manner, in person, at these meetings would / should get answers. Not always the way things go but I believe they are fair questions as they are directed to get more information.

In terms of the two working together, who knows. Maybe their objectives are more aligned than what we see. I definitely dont think that without all these facts we can implicate the president of anything.

It is possible that extending the closure to the whole lake that the sawt would be unable to fish travers which I believe would ultimately collapse the sawt. Travers is a key lake as it is the most northern lake and most popular on the sawt. Turnouts for the other lakes are not as healthy. However I dont think this would be an ultimate cause for only seeking closure of the west arm. That is a big lake and I definitely wouldn't label it as easy to fish. I believe the large part for the push for just the west arm has to do with the fact that it is a major bottleneck. I dont consider myself by any means an expert angler. But the first time I went to travers, the first two spots I highlighted on my charts were the arm and wolfe coulee(which i think closure for wolfe will/should fallow suit of the arm next year). I also would like to believe that as avoiding closing the entire lake is a partial give and take offering. People love fishing, toss them a bone. Let them fish but also protect the resource. a meet in the middle type of situation.

The way I look at is is how I'd look at a kid. they need to be protected, and safety precautions need to be taken. But it overkill to wrap him in bubble wrap
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 11-09-2011, 11:02 AM
Justin.C Justin.C is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southeren AB
Posts: 884
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gl2 View Post
FACT: HARASSING SPAWNING FISH IS A PROBLEM. I dont care if its from a weekend warrior or a tourney vet its wrong, plain and simple.

I have been searching the internet and have read some interesting pdf files on how some other places run there waters and how they manage the resource. I know that some wont apply to alberta waters as different places have to deal with different problems and have different challenges. I did find a pretty common theme in most places such as minnesota, ontario and michigan. Protect, develop, maintain and restore critical habitats for natural stocks of walleye. I would say this fits right in with the problem occurring on traverse. To me protect doesn't mean getting my gear out and chasing them all over there spawning grounds.

There were also some other ways that other places implemented special regulations to preserve there fish and habitats. i.e. slot limits, banning early season night time fishing,reduce possession limits and banning boats from tearing up spawning grounds. I know the boat one would be tricky as the launch sits in the middle of prime spawning ground but with the closure no boat should need be up the west arm further than the launch. There were also some things that don't need regulation changes and would cost nothing like keeping the lake free and clear of garbage ( especially in spawning grounds ) so by doing something so small as not leaving your cra* on the ice in the winter and lugging your trash out the rest of the time will help walleye have a more successful spawn. just thought i would share some of the stuff i have been reading on the net....
Spawning fish dont eat... pre and post do....... This closure is bull $h!t.... Another thing taken away from all of us...... I am sick of all that is taken and nothing ever given back to us as sportsmen
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 11-09-2011, 11:09 AM
Winch101 Winch101 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Okotoks wilderness
Posts: 4,420
Default Creel Census

x 2

I dont believe there is a report ,a long time Sawt member told me they did creel census while fishing the tourneys , all info went to Clayton , Lethbridge .
Where is that info published
My father would say

All young men think old men are fools , but all Old men Know young men are fools ....

When I post something on here there is very little that isnt grounded in fact.
And the fact is that today this fishery is in good shape and shouldnt be managed at the whim of a small group of people. The proof is that myself and other board members catch a pile of fish of varying year classes evry time we go out , all over the lake ...close that spillway if you want to take a bite out of the abuse .

So lets get those govt reports on the Travers condition posted on here .
Lets invite someone from the regulatory body to come on here and inform us .

I am not discrediting the fact that all these reservoir fisheries are fragile ,
That is why we need an AO fund to commission our own investigations and reports ....If you are allowed to keep fish , then there is always the possibility that a closed body of water can be fished out ... then what.
With our strong walleye stocking policy in alberta we have very little to worry about

Dont lose sight of the fact that the nuts&berries ,all natural , metro whatever will tell you that there is nothing like the fight of a walleye
to get your juices flowing.Its all about the experience....well my legal experience has alot of sizzle in it. I am all for insuring good year classes
because , I put back very few 20-25 " fish..And again seeing Justin C.
post , all the fish I have kept out of that creek in May and June are packed with shiners .This is a prime feeding area...

Our next discussion will be on CVR...where have all the walleyes gone....?
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 11-09-2011, 11:14 AM
Gust Gust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin.C View Post
Spawning fish dont eat... pre and post do....... This closure is bull $h!t.... Another thing taken away from all of us...... I am sick of all that is taken and nothing ever given back to us as sportsmen
uhm, there are other lakes open during the 3 or so weeks closed. Think of it as giving the Walleye a spa, a break from the boat noise, and the food that hurts the mouth.
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 11-09-2011, 11:50 AM
TyreeUM's Avatar
TyreeUM TyreeUM is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Posts: 1,353
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin.C View Post
Spawning fish dont eat... pre and post do....... This closure is bull $h!t.... Another thing taken away from all of us...... I am sick of all that is taken and nothing ever given back to us as sportsmen
spawning fish can be targeted by keying in on aggressive strikes rather than feeding patterns...
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 11-09-2011, 11:57 AM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

[QUOTE=Winch101;1152940]You wont get an answer because there is no problem

This fishery is not in any jeopardy , doesnt need protection

I base my info on the fact that you can catch 50 to 100 walleyes a day there mostly not legal size ....


[QUOTE=Winch101;1153241]x 2


When I post something on here there is very little that isnt grounded in fact.
And the fact is that today this fishery is in good shape and shouldnt be managed at the whim of a small group of people. The proof is that myself and other board members catch a pile of fish of varying year classes evry time we go out , all over the lake ...

Not bashing...not calling you out....please explain
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 11-09-2011, 12:07 PM
Daceminnow's Avatar
Daceminnow Daceminnow is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,136
Default

i also have been researching different aspects being discussed on this thread. i found this "Proposed Sport Fish Regulation Changes for Round Table Discussion" data sheet from the SRD dated April 8, 2008. i came across this info while specifically searching for any info regarding the permanently closed sections on both Pigeon and Calling lake. this sheet looks to be something others are asking or wondering about here. it is a know fact the recent meeting in claresholm was a public announcement of the changes to be for the new season, not a discussion on the proposed changes and only pertained to a couple southern alberta waters. has the SRD discontinued a "round table discussion" prior to implementing new regulations province wide? if not, this data should be out there and available annually, no? maybe i just haven't come across it. also would this be a discussion the public could be involved in, or say in 2008 was involved in?


http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildli...RoundTable.pdf


Dace
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 11-09-2011, 12:16 PM
Justin.C Justin.C is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southeren AB
Posts: 884
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GustavMahler View Post
uhm, there are other lakes open during the 3 or so weeks closed. Think of it as giving the Walleye a spa, a break from the boat noise, and the food that hurts the mouth.
Get real... Go take this crap somewere else... All SRD does is take and screw up all the time and we are always left shaking our head as we as sportsmen are screwd.....
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 11-09-2011, 12:17 PM
Justin.C Justin.C is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southeren AB
Posts: 884
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TyreeUM View Post
spawning fish can be targeted by keying in on aggressive strikes rather than feeding patterns...
I know that but not everybody know how to do it. most are not like most us the real serious people on here either.
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 11-09-2011, 12:20 PM
Gust Gust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin.C View Post
Get real... Go take this crap somewere else... All SRD does is take and screw up all the time and we are always left shaking our head as we as sportsmen are screwd.....
How are we screwed? Seriously, how long is the closure and is it so hard to target elsewhere?
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 11-09-2011, 12:24 PM
Justin.C Justin.C is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southeren AB
Posts: 884
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GustavMahler View Post
How are we screwed? Seriously, how long is the closure and is it so hard to target elsewhere?
I dont care.. It is one more thing taken from us that does not need too. If numbers were way down in the lake ok. But every time I have been there tonnes of fish... I grew up not that far from that lake and it is as good as it has ever been.So why do we need to change what is not broken... If this is for the tourney move the tourny date to a later one.



Also who said I target them there????? I just dont see anything needing a change.
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 11-09-2011, 12:26 PM
horsetrader horsetrader is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 4,018
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winch101 View Post
x 2


.

I am not discrediting the fact that all these reservoir fisheries are fragile ,
That is why we need an AO fund to commission our own investigations and reports ....If you are allowed to keep fish , then there is always the possibility that a closed body of water can be fished out ... then what.
With our strong walleye stocking policy in alberta we have very little to worry about

I'm sorry to say this is not proper fish management. We should not have to rely on aggressive restocking to control a fishery that should be able to replenish and maintain it's self with a little help like a area closer.
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 11-09-2011, 12:34 PM
gl2's Avatar
gl2 gl2 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: southern ab
Posts: 598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin.C View Post
I dont care.. It is one more thing taken from us that does not need too. If numbers were way down in the lake ok. But every time I have been there tonnes of fish... I grew up not that far from that lake and it is as good as it has ever been.So why do we need to change what is not broken... If this is for the tourney move the tourny date to a later one.



Also who said I target them there????? I just dont see anything needing a change.



Let's wait till the fishery is in bad shape till we make pro active changes to protect fish. That's a great idea you got there......
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 11-09-2011, 12:39 PM
gl2's Avatar
gl2 gl2 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: southern ab
Posts: 598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin.C View Post
Get real... Go take this crap somewere else... All SRD does is take and screw up all the time and we are always left shaking our head as we as sportsmen are screwd.....
You just admitted in another post the fishing it's better than ever!!!!! The srd has been running traverse for some time now. Maybe you can send them a thank you card....
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 11-09-2011, 02:33 PM
Justin.C Justin.C is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southeren AB
Posts: 884
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gl2 View Post
Let's wait till the fishery is in bad shape till we make pro active changes to protect fish. That's a great idea you got there......
Numbers ar just the same as they were 25 years ago... So why change anything?????? RE read i never once said it was better.... Nothing to do with anything is better in this province. just getting worse....SRD has no clue how to do anything rite as well......
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 11-09-2011, 02:37 PM
Justin.C Justin.C is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southeren AB
Posts: 884
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gl2 View Post
You just admitted in another post the fishing it's better than ever!!!!! The srd has been running traverse for some time now. Maybe you can send them a thank you card....
You have no clue..... WAKE UP...
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 11-09-2011, 02:45 PM
gl2's Avatar
gl2 gl2 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: southern ab
Posts: 598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin.C View Post
Numbers ar just the same as they were 25 years ago... So why change anything?????? RE read i never once said it was better.... Nothing to do with anything is better in this province. just getting worse....SRD has no clue how to do anything rite as well......


These are changes I believe we can make to improve things. As you say things just get worse, here is a chance to support something that will make it better? And if you don't think these changes are going to benifit then what are your recomendations to make things better? Also can you please provide facts that show no change in number of self sustaining walleye in the last 25 years?
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 11-09-2011, 03:05 PM
TyreeUM's Avatar
TyreeUM TyreeUM is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Posts: 1,353
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horsetrader View Post
I'm sorry to say this is not proper fish management. We should not have to rely on aggressive restocking to control a fishery that should be able to replenish and maintain it's self with a little help like a area closer.
not to mention stocking walleye in a system with natural reproduction is an outdated practice from a management prospective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gl2 View Post
Let's wait till the fishery is in bad shape till we make pro active changes to protect fish. That's a great idea you got there......
I think you meant to say “reactive changes to protect fish” This is the main problem with a lot of the fisheries management plans. Most changes come because there is already a problem (reactive strategy) as opposed making changes based on concerns of a potential problem in the future. (proactive strategy) There are times these changes, unfortunately, are not made through careful consideration of scientific evidence, but made from irresponsible assumptions and political and personal agendas.
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 11-09-2011, 03:13 PM
gl2's Avatar
gl2 gl2 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: southern ab
Posts: 598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin.C View Post
You have no clue..... WAKE UP...
Thanks you for your valuable input in this matter......
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.