Poll on Proposed Fishing Regulation Changes for Kananakis Lakes

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Thanks.

Just wanted to know if I was reading it correctly. It answers a big question for me on the credibility of a poster when someone advocates releasing a new and highly efficient fish predator into a water system.

Sun

your twisting of words suggest a drowning lawyer .
you cant be so ignorant to believe thats what i meant.....you twist everyones words to suit your parade.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Still...I welcome you to go to Bullshead and talk to people...whether they are flyfishing from shore...casting bobbers with flies or floating the lake...all say the same thing. Fishing is better than it ever was in the past. A few told me they disagreed with the new regs at first but came around and changed their opinion after the implementation.

No thanks, It's too far for me to drive to only catch and keep one 20" trout. I'd sooner go to Carson Lake and catch and keep five nice sized Rainbow trout. And, some of them might even be 20" or over.

I'll take your word for it about Bullshead though.

[fishpro]

Originally Posted by steelhead

Someone bumped a topic up from a day on K lakes. Man those are big bulls. Huge actually.


And it got me thinking.


So if we were to enhance the rainbow trout fishing on this lake with stricter regs for thier size and survival as they seem to be self reproducing now, would they push out the bulls and cutts like they did on the Bow river?


If that were to happen, or have a chance to happen, I am against it.


Logan wont have any big bull pictures to share of what already looks like a quality fishery!


Anglers can catch huge fish there. Maybee not on a flyrod, but they certainly can catch big fish here. Can you use a flyrod to fish the deep deep water where the biggest fish hold in a deep lake situation? I never seen flyfishing done on Kootenay lake in August when the big bows are in 200 feet of water.


I bet those test nets didnt stretch into the deepest water.


STEELHEAD

To my understanding, the main goal actually isn't to enhance the rainbow trout fishing there, but rather the cutthroats. Although I'm not aware of as many lakes with both bulls and cutthroats, but I know they coexist quite well in many river systems. I do not believe that cutthroats would drive out the bull trout.

There is an extremely small risk of the rainbow trout population increasing on the lower lake as there is some natural reproduction, but I do not believe people heavily target the rainbows now as it is. So it's most likely the the rainbows have a low population simply due to limited spawning habitat of perhaps some other limiting factor. With something like this limiting the numbers, I don't think we would have to worry about rainbows pushing out the cutts and bulls.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

i have many friends that come here to fish from B.C......yes they have pike and walleye but they come here because its just better. Gawd forbid they suggest regulations changes to suit their personal desires and stock more B.C. lakes with gators and set regs for their sucess.

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Curious...are you suggesting you favor the introduction of pike to non native waters holding trout in BC?

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

ya thats what gawd forbid means......wow

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Thanks.
Just wanted to know if I was reading it correctly. It answers a big question for me on the credibility of a poster when someone advocates releasing a new and highly efficient fish predator into a water system.

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

your twisting of words suggest a drowning lawyer .
you cant be so ignorant to believe thats what i meant.....you twist everyones words to suit your parade.

You sure have confused me. I thought I gave you ample chance to explain yourself. Not sure how else to understand you when you seem to be so clear in your ideas.

Do you believe in stocking non native fish predators in trout waters in BC? Yes or No.

You have some ideas that preach your ideas and I need to understand them to see if you have a valid point. Now if you are so off from standard thinking then you could still have an outside the box idea that is valid...but people need to know how much knowledge you have on fisheries management issues since you have been strongly opposed to the logic expressed so far.

Anyways...I will have to take you up on catching big fish in BC... I have a number of friends that trek to the Kootenay every year to hammer some monsters. Big fish. Do you troll deep like they do or can you catch them without all the extra hardware?

[steelhead]

Thank you Fishpro, i like your response and your views.


I just think, if we have the hybridization as we do on the rivers of cutts and bows, cuttbows, and with regs preventing the take of smaller trout, both bows and cutts, allowing those fish to be of spawning size for that to happen, do you think that may happen in the future in this situation? We do know how invasive and destructive bows can be.


Once a fish has started spawning in a less than natural situation, the offspring return to the place of thier birth to procreate again. Now that the Bows have found a sweet spot to spawn after a couple of decades, could there be a chance of a higher recruitment in the future for this specie? Perhaps hybridization also?

So many tangents to consider for these lakes. Especially since they already have self-sustaining and multiple species.

Now, if they were void of fish or only had one specie to consider (cutts), I would be for the new regs. I would help the cause actually. But, as we have seen with the ( I know its a different specie but they are not naturally a lake spawner) Walleye spawning in unnatural settings and thier proliferation to the point of noticable decline of other species, do you think that situation may happen in K lake? We changed the regs to allow walleyes to reach spawning age. If we do that for a lake that holds rainbows, is there a possible chance they may take over?


Thanks for your input. I dont agree with some of it, but some I do. I just hate to see an experiment go bad like it has in many many situations in this province and, well, even the states that hug the east side of the divide like us.


STEELHEAD

[goldscud]

Steelhead, the bull trout in Lower Kan can easily be caught with fly rods. In fact I've witnessed 30 fish days with flies.
Pretty sure the rainbows didn't drive out the bull trout from the Bow river. I've fished the Bow since the 60's, when did the rainbows push them out? I don't ever remember catching any in any abundance below Calgary. A few dams, migrating issues, water temps and angling/poaching all might have affected things for the Bull trout

Back to quality lakes...I wish the rest of us knew of quality trout lakes outside of the National Parks here in southern Alberta. I'm just trying to gather facts so I can see why a proposal for a quality lake should be rejected. Pretty much everyone I know goes to BC to catch big trout. I'm surprised all the big triploids in BC don't qualify as quality trout for you.
I agree we have great trout streams in southern Alberta. Many of us would just like to see a few more quality lakes (that us dummies can find).

Prairie lakes...you make it sound so easy to make a trophy trout fishery. I to would love it if our government would invest more money into fisheries. However, it doesn't seem to be much of a priority for them. To dredge, aerate and supply stable (pike free) water conditions would take a giant investment.

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

You sure have confused me. I thought I gave you ample chance to explain yourself. Not sure how else to understand you when you seem to be so clear in your ideas.

Do you believe in stocking non native fish predators in trout waters in BC? Yes or No.

hahahaahah you indeed are special!!!!

You have some ideas that preach your ideas and I need to understand them to see if you have a valid point. Now if you are so off from standard thinking then you could still have an outside the box idea that is valid...but people need to know how much knowledge you have on fisheries management issues since you have been strongly opposed to the logic expressed so far.

and your expertise....can we grade you on your community pond?.....i can play dirty too!!!!!!

Anyways...I will have to take you up on catching big fish in BC... I have a number of friends that trek to the Kootenay every year to hammer some monsters. Big fish. Do you troll deep like they do or can you catch them without all the extra hardware?

we pull hair and hockey sticks on top in the spring.....when the flying ants come out we flycast in creek mouths....in the fall we pull hair again.....winter its billies and dawgs

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by steelhead

Thank you Fishpro, i like your response and your views.


I just think, if we have the hybridization as we do on the rivers of cutts and bows, cuttbows, and with regs preventing the take of smaller trout, both bows and cutts, allowing those fish to be of spawning size for that to happen, do you think that may happen in the future in this situation? We do know how invasive and destructive bows can be.


Once a fish has started spawning in a less than natural situation, the offspring return to the place of thier birth to procreate again. Now that the Bows have found a sweet spot to spawn after a couple of decades, could there be a chance of a higher recruitment in the future for this specie? Perhaps hybridization also?

So many tangents to consider for these lakes. Especially since they already have self-sustaining and multiple species.

Now, if they were void of fish or only had one specie to consider (cutts), I would be for the new regs. I would help the cause actually. But, as we have seen with the ( I know its a different specie but they are not naturally a lake spawner) Walleye spawning in unnatural settings and thier proliferation to the point of noticable decline of other species, do you think that situation may happen in K lake? We changed the regs to allow walleyes to reach spawning age. If we do that for a lake that holds rainbows, is there a possible chance they may take over?


Thanks for your input. I dont agree with some of it, but some I do. I just hate to see an experiment go bad like it has in many many situations in this province and, well, even the states that hug the east side of the divide like us.


STEELHEAD

I agree with Fishpro

Rainbows have shown minor spawning success. Water is probably too cold for them and the season too short as well as lack of quality spawning habitat. I have seen rainbows trying to spawn in August. Nothing that will happen will improve their numbers...but rather just keep them hanging in. If it was a problem...F&W could easily crash what little spawning success there is. As this area does not have pure cutthroat genetics...any rainbow/cutt hybrids will not be a negative as the damage happened long ago.

Cutts and bulls evolved together and coexisted naturally in this basin. They have a different niche in the ecosystem. Overall I don't see any species interaction issues that should be called a negative to this proposal.

[steelhead]

Goldscud


At one time, all there was were cutts and bulls in the Bow. Now, all there is are Bows and Browns and billions of them. Thats quite an invasion. I do understand that there are other contributing factors to thier decline. Dams, pollution, warming of waters due to cities and towns dumping effluent. If you go upstream on the highwood system such as 3point, sheep, and highwood and thier tribs, We see a few more of the first species but less compared to invasives. And then throw in the Brookies. When fishing a trib of the highwood up 40, i get 3 brookies to one bull and no cutts. In some places, all cutts and bulls with a splash of cuttbow or Bow. If the invasives werent there, we would only catch cutts and bulls. I think and believe the invasives to and have pushed out the Cutts and Bulls and continue to do so. One reason why they want all brookies to die on the 3point system. I would be concerned of this happening in K lakes if they were left unchecked.


I have gone to BC many many times to fish potholes for the gerrards. Many times. I find that thier potholes are quite simular in size as alberta pothole trout, and they stock them every year too and with a small keeper size limit like AB. Look at the Bow caught in Macvinnie res that won the award for big trout in the regs. Thats a honker and it was caught in a pothole. Our potholes can produce the odd honker just like BC. It was also not a broodstock. When people go to BC to get big fish, they hit the rivers and Koot lake. The rivers have massive fish due to the regs, much like alberta streams. Koot lake has big bulls and gerrards. K lake has big bulls and Cutts and are caught with as much frequency and maybee more on K lakes compared to koot. I fish both alot.


One reason why i make it sound easy to make a quality pothole lake on the prairies is that I see private landowners digging thier own HUGE lakes, funding and stocking them and seeing a beautiful lake with lots of trout. many of our potholes now were built by companies like logging and oil companies. Just a drop in the bucket for price to build a quality fishery from scratch. If the gov asked for money from oil or agriculture to help build these or enhance and dredge what we have, it would get cheaper Private landowners are doing it and on the cheap. Pick any claypan and sick a d-8 cat to it and voila, lake. And it can be deeper than just looking for a suitable slough.

But, since the gov is cheaping out with our tax dollars, we aint getting any of that for our dollars. We get what we have got now and no more, but always less.


We dont need more special regs on any lake no where in this province. We need dollars and action. As in other provinces, it shows it works. It can work here.


Lobby for dollars and action. excellent. Lobby for stricter regs, going backwards like we have seen for years now.

I want to go forward, dont you?


STEELHEAD

[fishpro]

Originally Posted by steelhead

Thank you Fishpro, i like your response and your views.


I just think, if we have the hybridization as we do on the rivers of cutts and bows, cuttbows, and with regs preventing the take of smaller trout, both bows and cutts, allowing those fish to be of spawning size for that to happen, do you think that may happen in the future in this situation? We do know how invasive and destructive bows can be.


Once a fish has started spawning in a less than natural situation, the offspring return to the place of thier birth to procreate again. Now that the Bows have found a sweet spot to spawn after a couple of decades, could there be a chance of a higher recruitment in the future for this specie? Perhaps hybridization also?

So many tangents to consider for these lakes. Especially since they already have self-sustaining and multiple species.

Now, if they were void of fish or only had one specie to consider (cutts), I would be for the new regs. I would help the cause actually. But, as we have seen with the ( I know its a different specie but they are not naturally a lake spawner) Walleye spawning in unnatural settings and thier proliferation to the point of noticable decline of other species, do you think that situation may happen in K lake? We changed the regs to allow walleyes to reach spawning age. If we do that for a lake that holds rainbows, is there a possible chance they may take over?


Thanks for your input. I dont agree with some of it, but some I do. I just hate to see an experiment go bad like it has in many many situations in this province and, well, even the states that hug the east side of the divide like us.


STEELHEAD

Your point about the hybridization could happen, but at the same time I don't think it is a huge concern. There are a few reasons I feel this.

Like I said, I believe that there are very few people who target the rainbows in the lower lake. Hence the numbers are primarly limited by the spawning habitat in this lake, and not by fishermen. As of right now, both rainbow and cutt populations in the lake are maintained only through spawning, I don't think there is the same amount of stocking as in the upper lake. What this means is that fishermen take very few rainbows from the lower lake and hence offering the proposed protection will not significantly affect the number of rainbows. On the other hand, we will be able to increase the number of cutthroats through stocking.

The upper lake is a different situation though. As far as I know there is no spawning by the rainbows here simply due to a lack of appropriate spawning habitat. There will eventually come a day when the rainbows from previous stockings have died off, it will become a cutthroat and bull trout lake. It is nearly to that point now.

As for hybridization, I don't think we need to worry the same way as on the rivers. I'm not saying it won't happen, but rather it probably won't cause problems as in river systems. The main reason for this is the limited spawning as mentioned before. Furthermore, if there are a few rainbows and cuttbows after 20 years, I don't think this is a huge concern for fishermen of biologists. The reason for this is that the cutthroats in the lakes will not be a native population, such as what we have in the rivers where rainbows have taken over and diluted the gene pool and left no pure strain native cutts. The stocking of cutthroats and bull trout is to return the lakes to a more natural state, but it will never be a true native population. I think that what we would eventually see is a lake with numerous bulls and cutts, and then every now and then you would hook a large rainbow that causes your reel to scream.

I do not believe that these regulations will enable rainbows to completely take over the lake(s), especially with large amounts of cutthroats being stocked on an annual basis.

[goldscud]

I dug around to find some interesting info on the gill netting in UKL:

"In 2006 and 2007, the nets were set on the bottom (various depths) in the same locations at the same time of year as in 1986. The only difference was that in 2007, nets were also set in the mid water and on the surface, since no cutthroat trout were caught in the bottom sets. However, to ensure consistency the comparison of the catch rate data in the poster was only for the catches from the bottom sets. All live trout that were still alive were released so as to not unnecessarily impact the fishery."

In 2006 and 2007, there were fewer days of gillnetting conducted than in 1986, because so many more sport fish were being caught in each net. Since the biologists didn't want to unnecessarily impact the fishery by killing too many sport fish, and because they had enough data to determine that the density of sport fish and the average size of sport fish had increased, they cut short the number of days of gillnetting in 2006 and 2007.

Government fiddling with fisheries in the Lower Kan:

Do you really think that the Alberta's "fiddling" with the LKL fishery (implementation of the 0-limit for bull trout and bait ban in 1992), which resulted in a 30-fold increase bull trout numbers in LKL, was the wrong approach? What would your approach have been.................keep the regulations as they were and allow anglers to wipe out the remaining 60 adult bull trout, just to protect the stocked rainbow fishery

[goldscud]

Quality lake regulations on an existing lake vs BUILDING a quality prairie trout lake
In Alberta, I think option number 1 is the only thing I'm going to see in my lifetime.

Rainbows and Bulls in LKL. They are using different streams to spawn in. I don't think the spring spawning will ever be significant enough to harm the Bull trout. Very cold water and limited habitat. When future gill netting surveys are done on LKL, I'm sure the bios will look at the growth rates and determine if Cutt stocking densities need to be altered.

I've fished lots of quality lakes in BC along the Columbia/Kootenay valleys and around Kamloops. It's nice to go to a lake where the catch rates for trout over even 18" are quite high. A few more in Alberta would keep me from leaving the province every summer.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by steelhead

Goldscud


At one time, all there was were cutts and bulls in the Bow. Now, all there is are Bows and Browns and billions of them. Thats quite an invasion. I do understand that there are other contributing factors to thier decline. Dams, pollution, warming of waters due to cities and towns dumping effluent. If you go upstream on the highwood system such as 3point, sheep, and highwood and thier tribs, We see a few more of the first species but less compared to invasives. And then throw in the Brookies. When fishing a trib of the highwood up 40, i get 3 brookies to one bull and no cutts. In some places, all cutts and bulls with a splash of cuttbow or Bow. If the invasives werent there, we would only catch cutts and bulls. I think and believe the invasives to and have pushed out the Cutts and Bulls and continue to do so. One reason why they want all brookies to die on the 3point system. I would be concerned of this happening in K lakes if they were left unchecked.
STEELHEAD

I agree. Brookies are the worst invasive when it comes to cutts and bull trout. The research done on Quirk Creek has shown the steady decline in natives due to brookies as well as disastrous hybridization problems between bulls and brookies. F&W with Trout Unlimited started the Quirk Creek project years ago to selectively encourage brookie harvest and through that practice determine the effects on the natives. The thing to remember about brookies is that they can compete very well is upper cold water reaches of small foothill and mountain streams and tributaries. Rainbows can also compete with natives cutts in more lower reaches and bulls to some extent (but they often fill a similar roll to cutts) and hybridization with rainbows and native westslopes cutts was a darn tragedy. In these colder waters browns do not do very well at all. Quite poorly in fact. Rainbows also are somewhat limited in spawning as they are not evolved for these areas but through genetics...get a foothold in the upper reaches. Nature evolved cutts and bulls to coexist and live extremely well in the UKL and LKL area. No one is advocating stocking brookies so that fear is not a concern.

I would have to guess only at this but I recall some studies that showed bull trout diminished quickly as you moved downstream in the Bow and Oldman Rivers due to temperature requirements of the species. I remember that being the case on the North Sask with very few bulls caught downstream of Rocky and a rare one in Edmonton.

The same applied to the upstream limits of browns in colder water with the colder the water the harder it is for them to compete. The Seebe Dam would of destroyed any downstream migration and possible upstream migration and that was probably the kiss of death for bulls downstream... After that...Ghost did it. When the Oldman Dam was built...they had planned to put a ladder in...then changed their mind. The plan was to expect the bulls to spawn in another creek...Pincher Creek...but that never materialized. Therefore all bulls downstream for a while were moved by hand upstream in the fall to promote spawning. That has stopped I assumed since when I worked on that project I have heard nothing since. With little to no natural spawning...all you get downstream of the dams are stray fish that swim over the spill way. As the natural population dies of old age...the species composition changes. Bull trout disappear and any species that can spawn do so. Browns and brookies have spawning requirements that compliment the remaining habitat below dams. In the old fisheries management days...any sport fish surviving and doing well was a victory...now we are also concerned with protecting natives over and above non native if we have a choice. So to show sportfishing was not effected downstream of dams...F&W stocked the crap out of it hoping to get rainbows and browns to be successful. Yes it obviously worked.

I would be curious to see how the upper Bow in Banff is doing. When I was a kid...all I ever caught were brookies. I hear there is a bull fishery but not much in the way of browns except in a few tribs I am aware of.

I think most people would love to step back in time and not stock brookies in 99% of the places the are today. You and I kind Sir are finally in agreement on something for sure.

Cheers

Sun

[smitty9]

Steelhead:

As you've criticized Sun's points, I'll exercise my right to do the same.

I don't subscribe to your fear-based approach to fisheries management. There's a lot of 'coulda' and 'maybe' in your hypothetical projections.

What I would like to see is the potential of the lakes reached. Part of this point is the separate issue of littoral restoration, lake stabilization, which isn't part of the picture right now (I had thought that the plant was going to be de-commissioned).

But the most basic point is that the lakes are far to big to waste on a put-and-take 5 fish / daily limit, bait allowed fishery. There are plenty of those around. LKL and UKL do indeed have quality fish, but the quality of fishing as measured by average size could be improved. Nothing you or the anti's have said have made any compelling arguments to change my mind.

I also reject your thesis about mountain versus prairie quality fisheries. Nothing wrong or dangerous or inappropriate about having a mountain quality fishery close to a major center like Calgary. Most anglers, I think, would welcome it.

I've taught plenty of kids to spin - with and without bait - but especially to flyfish - had a 3 yr old catch her first fish on a flyrod last summer -, so again, I'll toss out the whole "family/kids" argument for the hogwash it is. There are still plenty - PLENTY - of places in this province, north and south to take kids to catch rainbow trout with a bobber and worm/powerbait.

I think you've done a splendid job obfuscating the argument with a lot of points that seem either like red herrings or nitpickiness or simply based on conjecture.

Of course there are concerns, but as with anything in life, there are lots of ways to say no, the trick sometimes is to have vision and find ways to say yes to something. Not here to try and change your mind - if anything these debates sure bring out the entrenched on both sides, including me, just adding my half penny to the side that seems to be pro-active in terms of changing AB's fisheries for the better (and there some risks to it, sure, but not much imho).

Smitty

Oh, and as Sun said, I too am looking forward to your petition to get more money for enforcement, money for SRD in general. I'd probably sign it.

[steelhead]

Goldscud - test netting flaws. 20 some years and 3 test nettings. Same places, same time of year. Fish move. Populations have ups and downs due to environmental impacts, floods, drought, fires, logging, hydro use. The space between nettings, same place, same time of year allow flaws in the data. If the data showed a yearly test, in different seasons, and told of local environmental changes, I would agree with that data. Have you ever seen the work and money other provinces put into testing a lake or river? You would see the flaws in this data also As it stands, i cannot accept it.

I agree with the bait ban and bull closure. It did well. It made the lakes what they are today, quality for young and old. Cant get better than that. Why change it?

Fishpro - the bows are already spawning. Like the walleyes, they found a niche. Theres no turning back the walleye tide. My views see the rainbows there only getting a bigger population, just like the walleyes. Its already started.


Sun - The bows are spawning now. They found thier niche. I guess it isnt too cold for them and there is suitable habitat. Funny how nature works.



We can debate this all we want. But why isnt anyone petitioning for more money? Wanna see a sign up sheet fill up fast?

I dont agree with more regs anywhere. No matter what the situation. The more we encourage to make new regs, the less money we see come back to fishing.

If you fold to the Gov buy changing regs to fit existing budgets, make free changes and not ask for more money, it will create a trend where there will be NO money going to our fisheries. Much like what is happening now.

I agree we should lobby for more money and make our tax dollars work for us. It is the only thing that will make this all better.

Enhance the fishing everywhere and care for every waterbody and we wont have to worry about quality lakes regs, they will all be quality and more places of quality to spread out the pressure.


Change the regs to suit the 250-300 people who voted yes for these changes, well, thats absurd. It will hurt more than the waters you are trying to protect.

I am still against this proposal.


STEELHEAD

[GaryF]

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

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

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by steelhead

Sun - The bows are spawning now. They found thier niche. I guess it isnt too cold for them and there is suitable habitat. Funny how nature works.
STEELHEAD

A small limited number of rainbows that barely registers on the test netting...or the limited 50 spawners in Bolton does not constitute successful spawning from a management perspective... Yes from a general perspective the rare successful spawning happens...but the water is too cold...and the habitat is too limited. That is a fact. Your Three Point, Ware and Pekisko spawning success that drives the population in the Bow River is an example of a successful strong population. LKL is an example of very weak success and therefore there is not significant success to the overall discussion. If spawning success was excellent...then we would not be talking about it...it would be obvious. Barely holding on as a population in other words hardly constitutes success. Still...as this is a put and take fishery...genetics are not a problem...rainbows occupy a similar niche to cutts...cutts and bulls co-exist as nature evolved them to...all is great in the world...are as good as it can be from a population perspective...now let's just bump the 12 inch length to 20 inch. Increase the number of catchable trout...increase the size of the trout we can take home as a meal.

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by GaryF

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

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

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

[fishpro]

Originally Posted by steelhead

Fishpro - the bows are already spawning. Like the walleyes, they found a niche. Theres no turning back the walleye tide. My views see the rainbows there only getting a bigger population, just like the walleyes. Its already started.

Are you sure about this? It is my understanding that the tributaries only allow a certain amount of spawning due to cold water and simply not enough spawning habitat. If only so many fish can spawn each year, then there is only a certain amount of rainbows that can exist in the system. This is why I believe the rainbows won't get out of control.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by steelhead

But why isnt anyone petitioning for more money? Wanna see a sign up sheet fill up fast?

I dont agree with more regs anywhere. No matter what the situation. The more we encourage to make new regs, the less money we see come back to fishing.

If you fold to the Gov buy changing regs to fit existing budgets, make free changes and not ask for more money, it will create a trend where there will be NO money going to our fisheries. Much like what is happening now.

I agree we should lobby for more money and make our tax dollars work for us. It is the only thing that will make this all better.

Enhance the fishing everywhere and care for every waterbody and we wont have to worry about quality lakes regs, they will all be quality and more places of quality to spread out the pressure.


Change the regs to suit the 250-300 people who voted yes for these changes, well, thats absurd. It will hurt more than the waters you are trying to protect.

I am still against this proposal.


STEELHEAD

Steelhead says "But why isnt anyone petitioning for more money? Wanna see a sign up sheet fill up fast?"

You have showed no truth or facts to the reduced funding being caused by improving the fishing and protecting the resource through much needed regulations. I just can't see it.

Steelhead say "I dont agree with more regs anywhere. No matter what the situation. The more we encourage to make new regs, the less money we see come back to fishing."

Anarchy is no way to manage anything let along a finite resource like our public fisheries. What regulations if any do you feel are important to protecting our fisheries? Still more money is good for enforcement and research. The question you need to ask yourself is why are YOU not starting a petition asking our MLA's for more money?

Steelhead says "Enhance the fishing everywhere and care for every waterbody and we wont have to worry about quality lakes regs, they will all be quality and more places of quality to spread out the pressure"

That is all fine and good to say in a Utopian situation but in real life things take time. Steps have to be taken. Public has to be educated about what works. Bullshead started the latest eye opening changes. Sometimes baby steps are needed like this. Also sometimes things are not always black and white. Not sure why a 20 inch rule would ever be needed in Mt Lorette ponds for instance. Maybe we need to think outside the box. In a put and take lake that winterkills. Why have a 3 or 5 fish a day limit all year. Most fish go soon after stocking. How about 1 fish a day until Sept 1 then 5 fish a day after that to hoover them out. Mt. Lorette is an interesting example. It was designed with access for wheelchairs yet it is fished mostly by middle aged older adults without disabilities. How about let that fishery stay catch a release to provide fun for the kids in wheelchairs...then come Sept 15...have a liberal limit to clean it out until next year.

We can't just keep sitting back with status quo as the population is growing. There are many users and we can all get along. It is not about C&R guys versus hardware guys, versus flyfishermen, versus bait fishermen... It is about managing fairly for everyone. I fish all the above methods. I just love catching fish...

[GaryF]

I am 100% for more money to the SRD as I think they are so strapped as is. That tho is another can of worms altogether, LOL.

[smitty9]

Originally Posted by steelhead

I agree with the bait ban and bull closure. It did well. It made the lakes what they are today, quality for young and old. Cant get better than that. Why change it?

I, and others, believe it could get better. No point exploring this point further, really.

We can debate this all we want. But why isnt anyone petitioning for more money? Wanna see a sign up sheet fill up fast?

I do! Get'er done.

I dont agree with more regs anywhere. No matter what the situation.

I think that is shortsighted since its such a blanket generalization. Every year, you see some lakes opening up or closing down for walleye AND pike harvest. Without new regs, or changes to old ones, you'd have more collapsed fisheries. But I am definitely sympathetic to the an overall point that, where possible, keep the regs as simple as possible.

The more we encourage to make new regs, the less money we see come back to fishing.

One doesn't necessarily follow the other. You haven't established a causal effect here.

I agree we should lobby for more money and make our tax dollars work for us. It is the only thing that will make this all better.

Enhance the fishing everywhere and care for every waterbody and we wont have to worry about quality lakes regs, they will all be quality and more places of quality to spread out the pressure.

Yes, your basic premise is pretty sound.

Change the regs to suit the 250-300 people who voted yes for these changes, well, thats absurd. It will hurt more than the waters you are trying to protect.

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

I am still against this proposal.
STEELHEAD

But of course you are. Tis natural and welcomed since its obvious you and Sun (and me too, but I'll pick Sun instead of me, he's much better than me in framing this debate) both want what's best for AB. And that, at least should be recognized.

Smitty

[steelhead]

Hey Smitty, missed you there,


My fear base is that it will take money away with implementing of free regs. Also the possibility of an invasive overwhealming a system. There is also ALOT of "could" and "maybee" on the pro side also. So were evenly matched.


What is a quality size and who made the decision that that size is the number of quality. To a 5 year old, 10 inches. To a frustrated adult angler, 20 inches. Who matters more? If it was a 5 year old dreaming up that trophy size, it would be 8 inches. If you catch a dozen 10 inchers and one 20 incher, is that a quality fishery? If you catch a hundred 10 inchers, is that a quality fishery? So, we have 250-300 people that believe quality is 20 inches or more. Such a small number of people think quality is bigger.

Since a quality fishery hasnt been introduced that close to a major centre over a million, neither you or I know what will happen. Up there with the "could" and "maybee's" both sides are experiencing.

I said i was for a bait ban. But I will say it again, I am for a bait ban.

Smitty said.....

"I think you've done a splendid job obfuscating the argument with a lot of points that seem either like red herrings or nitpickiness or simply based on conjecture."

So has Sun and many other supporting this. I'm not alone and its not just the Con side.


Thanks Smitty, I write none of this in anger or for retribution. I like that there are some that want better for our fisheries. I wont change your mind and you wont change mine. Understandable. We come from different backgrounds and fishing styles and techniques. No one will ever see eye to eye. But I do thank you for your Half-penny.


Do you think more money and less regs would improve our fisheries as a whole? Monetary focus on other areas to draw pressure from lakes a few now want made to a quality standard? If other species were improved with a monetary injection, do you think less people would fish trout, thereby improving many trout fisheries?


Make other species as easy and plentiful to catch as stocked dink trout, and maybee every pothole and mountain lake would flourish without changes.

Thats what I believe. A free to implement reg will only help one spot.


STEELHEAD

[steelhead]

Alot goes on unnoticed as I write. Sorry for the delays.




We already have regs that work, we have no enforcement and kids and adults still baitfish in bait bans, adults still overlimit, there is little to no public education or public service announcements to warn anglers of the rules, except in the regs, but many never read them and make thier own rules, and the list goes on.


Then we have someone saying anarchy isnt the way to regulate. (sun). Theres anarchy to the existing regs! And it flourishes unchecked!


No facts to what reduced spending does? (sun). Thats all we hear about on these boards both ffcal and here. Get don Anderson on here, He'll tell you all about it. What happened to the walleye stocking program? Random camping, quads, invasives, and no money to fix them and no enforcement to fix the anarchy. Its out of control!

Money will fix that, not more regs.


Maybee i should make a poll to that effect. If the poll garners more than a fifteenhundred hits to lobby for more money, I will take up the challenge to correct it!


For me to take up that cause, I will also need representitives from all Styles of fishing. I am a multi-specie angler. I will need help from Those that fish potholes and lakes for trout, rivers for trout, lakes for pike and walleyes, and rivers for pike and walleyes. No organizations or members of them, they have single tracked and specie agendas that only help themselves. Just caring individuals who want to help it all. And especially not from AFGA. They may as well take fish from thier title, They only focus on hunting (which isnt a bad thing) but thier track record with fish is pitiful.

Find me those guys, get me 15 hundred hits, and I will make a stink.

Like smitty said, strength in numbers and squeeky wheels.


You wanna help smitty, sun?? Smitty said you both care alot. how much do you care?




STEELHEAD

[GaryF]

I believe that there is a lot of confusion in the term "quality fishery". To me a quality fishery is one of a higher fish per hour catch rate as oppossed to size. By limiting the "Harvesting size", the size at which you can take the fish out of the lake, more fish will remain in the lake to be caught, increasing the fish per hour catch rate. I like to catch fish when I am out, not just tossing a line out for excersise. If a lake gets hammered and there are very few fish in it, your fish per hour rate will be very low. Might as well just toss spoons with no hooks on them, your chance of catching a fish is about the same.

This isn't about catching just 20" fish, its about having lots of fish to catch, period. There is no one here that can say they don't want more fish to catch, or have a place to go where they know that they will catch fish and not have to use a atv or pack horse to get there. The problem is that some ppl are still stuck in the "if I catch it I keep it" mentality. Lots of places still out there to do that also if one so wishes.

[Sundancefisher]

Steelhead says: "My fear base is that it will take money away with implementing of free regs."

Please elaborate. I don't understand what you are saying.

Steelhead says: "Also the possibility of an invasive overwhealming a system."

There is no invasive concern here. We are stocking Cutts...which were native before...stocked now and will be stocked in the future. Rainbows while reproducing are not significantly successful...just barely hanging on. Any hybridization concerns are minor as they live in the same niche as cutts. Cutts and bulls and lived together in this lake before people got here. They are evolved to live together.


Steelhead says "What is a quality size and who made the decision that that size is the number of quality. To a 5 year old, 10 inches. To a frustrated adult angler, 20 inches. Who matters more? If it was a 5 year old dreaming up that trophy size, it would be 8 inches. If you catch a dozen 10 inchers and one 20 incher, is that a quality fishery? If you catch a hundred 10 inchers, is that a quality fishery?"

What about when the regulations are implemented and the child catches thirty 12 inchers, twenty 16 inchers, five 21 inchers and two 25 inchers in one day... How does she/he feel? Or likewise...how does the child feel that gets skunked because it is the off year for stocking or the hatchery had problems and stocking missed a year?

Steelhead say: "So, we have 250-300 people that believe quality is 20 inches or more. Such a small number of people think quality is bigger."

Funny thing about polls and petitions. If the majority of people are dead set against them they fight and scream to the death. The fight is intense! However if they think about the changes and the majority likes it then apathy becomes the defining problem as no body complains if they like it...so you get a limited number of community do gooders that put their two cents in along with the remaining opposed that fight tooth and nail. This is where apathy has to be over come and people have to say they approve...or else the negative side prevails.

Steelhead says: "Since a quality fishery hasnt been introduced that close to a major centre over a million, neither you or I know what will happen. Up there with the "could" and "maybee's" both sides are experiencing."

I can assume you mean once successful...how about traffic, parking, litter etc. As a park meant for use...let's hope this is a problem...because it can be mitigated for. Let's hope with increased anglers is also an increased respect for the park and it's protection and management. It may mean increased park staff and increased protection...but at the same time...increased fishermen means increased eyes against abuse.

Steelhead says: " I said i was for a bait ban. But I will say it again, I am for a bait ban."

That is great although there are no changes to the bait ban proposed in this regulation change. Many bait fishermen know only that method...but Bullshead proved that that can easily be overcome. An added benefit is reduced garbage from bait containers.

Smitty said.....

"I think you've done a splendid job obfuscating the argument with a lot of points that seem either like red herrings or nitpickiness or simply based on conjecture."

Steelhead says: Do you think more money and less regs would improve our fisheries as a whole? Monetary focus on other areas to draw pressure from lakes a few now want made to a quality standard? If other species were improved with a monetary injection, do you think less people would fish trout, thereby improving many trout fisheries?:

Depends...if you are saying adding more money to stock more is a band aid solution that will not fix the underlying problem of over harvest and over exploitation. It benefits only a few yet takes the majority of the money. If you are saying to apply more funds to studies drainage or lake specific yearly population dynamics to better assess harvest levels as well as increasing enforcement...I would agree.


Steelhead says: "Make other species as easy and plentiful to catch as stocked dink trout, and maybee every pothole and mountain lake would flourish without changes."

Sounds like you want a utopian ideal of tons of fish everywhere...therefore harvest is spread out and people can fish and harvest to there hearts content. That was the 1940, 50's and 60's. Ever wonder why the old timers say...in the good old days I used to pull 20 giant trout a day from that river and that lake. Now there is nothing left thanks to the new regulations...

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by GaryF

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

Assuming that your facts are accurate.

Well, I'm no mathematician and I don't know the difference between plain and fancy math but............If you reduce the possession limit from 3 fish to 1 (or 66%), doesn't it make sense that there would be a requirement to stock 66% fewer fish in order to maintain the same fish population?

This proposal is not about saving money or getting more CO's so you might as well take that off of the table now.

[GaryF]

My facts come straight from the srd stocking reports, nothing being manufactured here.

As for the saving of money and more co's not being a topic, you are correct. Neither is garbage, traffic, congestion, all the other if's or maybes. Everyone else is posting on possible negative effects of this change, so I am posting of a possible positive effect. So if my positive is off the table, so are all the negatives, fair?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by smitty9

I've taught plenty of kids to spin - with and without bait - but especially to flyfish - had a 3 yr old catch her first fish on a flyrod last summer -, so again, I'll toss out the whole "family/kids" argument for the hogwash it is. There are still plenty - PLENTY - of places in this province, north and south to take kids to catch rainbow trout with a bobber and worm/powerbait.

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

I mentioned it in an earlier post that the economics had to be studied. If $10K of easy to catch 12" stocked cutts generates $100K in tourist revenue do you think that SRD will change the regs for 300 local adults that want to catch bigger fish....pfffft!

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

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

I mentioned it in an earlier post that the economics had to be studied. If $10K of easy to catch 12" stocked cutts generates $100K in tourist revenue do you think that SRD will change the regs for 300 local adults that want to catch bigger fish....pfffft!

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

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

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

Common...

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