Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fishing Discussion

View Poll Results: Do You Support A Proposed Fishing Regulation Change For Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes?
Yes 93 68.89%
No 26 19.26%
Don't Care 16 11.85%
Voters: 135. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 01-09-2011, 11:14 AM
steelhead steelhead is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: south
Posts: 308
Default

sun wrote....

Your assumption that there are loads of big fish in the lakes already is not shown in gill netting data. There was not a large number caught in UKL so your assumption is wrong. There were only 50 rainbows measured in the LKL that were large. The lakes show they can grow them big...but harvest is quick.



How deep of water were the nets placed? how many times a year and for how many years were the netting done to have a proper analysis done? How many different areas of the lake were the nets put in? Were those big fish released unharmed?

Ok, just an edit, I looked at your data that you use. Way too flawed to get anywhere near a fair estimate on the fish sizes in those lakes. I move to have that flawed data exempt from these talks and your petition.


I would say your assumptions are wrong and with flawed data.


Our fisheries budget gets smaller every year. One indicator that with more rules and regs and less spending on quality lakes, they dont need the money to enhance them, theyre doing it all on thier own, with less spending.


You also wrote....
I disagree that we need to stocking more...stocking implies an over harvest and an unsustainable fishery.

Theres not a fishery in Canada that is sustainable. Overharvest happens everywhere! So as many other provinces see it, stocking is the only way to go.


Alberta has done enough testing and fiddling with our fisheries. All to be proven to be the wrong approach. Take some examples from other provinces and spend money and raise enforcement.



Why dont we all band together and petition for more money and enforcement. Theres no way in Hades you will get quality anywhere in this province without it!


Start there, and in a few years, i'm sure everyone will sign your petition with no "nays" on the poll.


STEELHEAD
__________________
official leader of the internet forum opposition party.

Last edited by steelhead; 01-09-2011 at 11:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-09-2011, 11:39 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Perchville
Posts: 14,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
How deep of water were the nets placed? how many times a year and for how many years were the netting done to have a proper analysis done? How many different areas of the lake were the nets put in? Were those big fish released unharmed?

Ok, just an edit, I looked at your data that you use. Way too flawed to get anywhere near a fair estimate on the fish sizes in those lakes. I move to have that flawed data exempt from these talks and your petition.


I would say your assumptions are wrong and with flawed data.


Our fisheries budget gets smaller every year. One indicator that with more rules and regs and less spending on quality lakes, they dont need the money to enhance them, theyre doing it all on thier own, with less spending.


You also wrote....
I disagree that we need to stocking more...stocking implies an over harvest and an unsustainable fishery.

Theres not a fishery in Canada that is sustainable. Overharvest happens everywhere! So as many other provinces see it, stocking is the only way to go.


Alberta has done enough testing and fiddling with our fisheries. All to be proven to be the wrong approach. Take some examples from other provinces and spend money and raise enforcement.



Why dont we all band together and petition for more money and enforcement. Theres no way in Hades you will get quality anywhere in this province without it!


Start there, and in a few years, i'm sure everyone will sign your petition with no "nays" on the poll.


STEELHEAD
I am sorry you agree with scientific data from Provincial biologists. Not much I can say. Gill netting is a very good technique to see what is available. Unfortunately it is not a method with high survivorship...therefore it is used sparingly.

While the budget does looking annoying every year... Please provide data to show money is coming out of they system and where...is it expense accounts, studies, stocking, staffing etc. "Your budget question is hard to know. Can you provide information that shows that when Bullshead implemented the new rules and attracted a huge fishermen following that somehow the system was financially harmed. Please provide some facts as if true I will be emailing my MLA... Otherwise...it is just a theory. I remember the opposite...after regs came into being...enforcement increased and not targeted enforcement still prevails but tons of eyes are keeping those greedy people more honest." You did not answer this. If you think this a conspiracy to save money...how so? The initiative are started by fishermen...not F&W. It was actually an uphill battle to make the first two...same as this one. If it was a conspiracy...why don't F&W just make it a rule across the whole Province? Answer...because from a management perspective it makes more sense in some places than all places.

We can disagree on the stocking idea. I feel F&W needs to adjust the limits to account for an allowable harvest. Thereby the fishery is sustainable. Your generalized comment applies when the basic principles are not followed due to improper science, unexpected increase in harvest (not accounting for human population over time versus limits), natural disaster, spawning success etc. The Bow River for instance is a fishery that does not get stocked. Does fine. The Crowsnest is not stocked. The Oldman is not stocked. All these fisheries are going well without stocking. A put and take lake with no natural spawning...requires stocking.

Let us know when you have that petition started to increase the enforcement budget as an ADDITIONAL expense item on the Provincial budget.

Cheers

Sun
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-09-2011, 11:40 AM
GaryF GaryF is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 178
Default

Hunterdave, I was just curious as to your interest in these lakes as you are so oppossed to the proposed changes. There are another 15 or so lakes and ponds within 30 mins of K lakes that also get stocked to pull fish from, so I guess I am just not sure why making regs on these 2 are a problem. If they stop having to put 34,000 fish into K lakes all the time, they can start putting more of those fish into other areas to be pulled out for those that need to keep what they catch.

I also pay my fee's for fishing, and I would much rather my money go into enforcement and more CO's than growing fish for ppl to stock freezers with. The govt doesn't raise deer and elk for the hunters, so why are we doing it for fish? If hunting was run the way that fishing is I am sure that you would get real upset and would want changes also.
__________________
Enjoying the peace and serenity of this wonderful sport!!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-09-2011, 12:06 PM
steelhead steelhead is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: south
Posts: 308
Default

Sun wrote...


Answer...because from a management perspective it makes more sense in some places than all places.


So, in an area with an abundance of trout fishing in streams and lakes, Why does it make sense to make a quality fishery in K lakes? The rivers have huge fish too. Theres probably more trout anglers on the rivers than will be on that lake (and hiding from the watchfull eye of any enforcement). Now, I can understand a quality fishery on the prairies miles from quality trout, but why in the heartland of trout fishing? Keep the lakes for the kids to catch some dinks, the rivers are managed very well for the monsters they hold. On the prairies, good, in the mountains, bad.

The less they have to stock these lakes, the more eyes they have from anglers watching poachers, the more non-government agencies get involved the less the gov has to put money too. And, we see a lower budget. Pretty clear to me. its been getting lower in the last 15 years too. The less the gov has to do, the less they have to pay. Damn clear to me.

sun also wrote....

The Bow River for instance is a fishery that does not get stocked. Does fine. The Crowsnest is not stocked. The Oldman is not stocked. All these fisheries are going well without stocking. A put and take lake with no natural spawning...requires stocking.

They were all stocked at one time. With invasive species at the top of the list of invasives. They wanted a quality fishery back then too i guess.


You are using river ecosystems as an example to compare to lakes with no waterflow or a closed system. Your a BIO, you should know better. You cant compare the 2, at all, no way. That position doesnt stand, at all, no way. You just mentioned rivers, any lakes you care to share with the same successes as your river examples?


STEELHEAD
__________________
official leader of the internet forum opposition party.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-09-2011, 12:49 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,655
Default

im trying to find info now.....maybe the crow isnt stocked!!!! BUT isnt crowsnest lake stocked?
all the rivers mentioned above must have some escapement?
e.g. beavermines is stocked - beavermine's creek empties into the castle- the castle empties into the oldman.
the fish barrier at grotto is a joke
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-09-2011, 01:15 PM
Tungsten, Tungsten, is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 199
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
the greatest rainbowtrout lake in B.C. is not managed under these regulations.


Go fish this lake NOW,I think then you'll understand.
This maybe true but for the lakes that do have these regs.Your chances of catching fish are excellent even for people that are not very experienced.

IMHO this is what its all about,nothing worse then spending a bunch of money on gas food and tackle only to be skunked.Then trying to explain to your 10 year old nephew why we didn't catch anything.

Now maybe you'll understand.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-09-2011, 01:20 PM
HunterDave's Avatar
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 17,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
No one is hiding anything. 94% of all trout kept were from the same year stocking. That is the actual fact. I just misread it but corrected myself when it was pointed out. In debates...some times that happens. Is this number a negative to the equation? No...in fact it remains a strong positive for implementing the proposed regs. It means that a huge percentage of the fish get harvested immediately after stocking. That means they are extremely easy to catch and if we just let mother nature feed em for a while...we can harvest bigger fish while retaining much higher catch rates in the interim. If we think about your comment later that you are a tax payer and have a right to comment...purely from a cash flow management perspective...can you see the logic and value in a delayed harvest, increased recreational value and in the end an increase in the size of the harvestable cutthroat to someone wishing to retain one?

It is fact that many lakes people target immediately after stocking...with in two weeks...some smaller lakes are fished out. How is this value to your tax payer dollars? How is this value to recreational fishing...when these lakes are devoid of fish. The only thing UKL and LKL have going for them is shear size. That is also the benefit to meeting the requirements for a quality fishery in an area with extremely limited options for such a fishery.

Catching bigger fish easier is not an opinion but a stated fact from anyone that has fished a quality fishery like Bullshead. Those of us that have fished it can say without a doubt the fishing has improved. Many that argued some of the same concerns against these regs in Bullshead are enjoying such awesome fishing that the fight to switch it back would be impossible.

No one can argue that people like catching fish when fishing in UKL and LKL. So buy your argument against there being no facts...missed the key fact that when the 12 inch minimum size limit was instituted that the catch rates increased 7 times. So retaining fish in the lake longer...delaying harvest and letting mother nature grow them to 20 inches will only increase catch rates... I can not see the argument working that says increasing the numbers of fish in the lake would decrease catch rates.

The fact is that the lake CAN hold bigger fish and does grow a few...but delaying harvest would allow the minimum size to increase just as the 12 inch rule accomplished at the time. That would mean an increasingly larger number of bigger cutts. This is one of the reasons for the lakes meeting the requirements for a quality fishery.

For someone that is not campaigning...you are doing a good job of trying.
If your want anyone to take anything that you write seriously then provide supporting information to back it up. Just because you say something is a fact doesn't make it so. Case in point, earlier this week I questioned you about where the facts were to support your statement that 94% of stocked fish were immediately caught. You admitted that you could not provide the supporting info yet you still post it as a fact (see your statement in bold #1 above).

Bold #2 - Show me the supporting information for this fact and how what happens at a small lake compares to Kan Lakes. They are usually stocked late in the Fall and are much bigger lakes. I highly doubt that they would be fished out within two weeks of being stocked so IMO it does not apply.

Bold #3 - You are saying that if someone voices an opinion it is a stated fact? Ah....ya.....okay. So if someone tells me that they think a quality fishery means catching and keeping several "eater" sized fish it is a stated fact and I should post it as a stated fact on this thread? I don't think so.

Bold #4 - If they put the same number of fish in every year how are the catch rates going to increase? Where is the logic.....Because the fish are bigger more of them will be caught?

Bold #5 - I could accept this as fact if a study was done to determine what the ramifications were of having more larger fish in the lake.

As for me campaigning against this proposal, I was quite happy to stay in the shadows and even helped you to maintain your credibility by quietly and diplomatically correcting you when I noticed you stating something as fact that any reasonable person would know was not possible to determine.

I came onto this thread with an open mind and I would have gladly signed the petition to support this proposal if I thought that it was a good idea. However, I have not read anything on the thread other than it would make it easier for grown ups to catch bigger fish as a reason to sign it. Had it been full of facts and information to support your position I may have seen it differently.

Although I admire and respect your determination in lobbying for this proposal, without studying the social, economic and environmental impacts of it first, how can anyone support it? Has anyone even contacted SRD to determine what the impact would be of having more larger fish in the lakes? Or, why the current regulation is in place to allow people to catch "eater" sized fish? How would this newly proposed regulation effect tourism and the local economy? There is a ton of more information that you need in order to be taken seriously. I'm sorry, but IMHO right now it just sounds like a few good 'ol boys got together on a Friday night over a few wobbly pops and came up with a plan to help them catch bigger fish.
__________________
“The whole problem with any issue is that fools and fanatics are always certain of their position, while wise people are full of doubt and questions.” Bertrand Russell
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-09-2011, 01:25 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tungsten, View Post
This maybe true but for the lakes that do have these regs.Your chances of catching fish are excellent even for people that are not very experienced.

IMHO this is what its all about,nothing worse then spending a bunch of money on gas food and tackle only to be skunked.Then trying to explain to your 10 year old nephew why we didn't catch anything.

Now maybe you'll understand.
ive always understood 10 percent of the fisherman catch 90 percent of the fish....and the 10 percent increases when big fish are involved.

im sorry you need to explain to your nephew.

good luck fishing
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-09-2011, 01:37 PM
Tungsten, Tungsten, is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 199
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
ive always understood 10 percent of the fisherman catch 90 percent of the fish....and the 10 percent increases when big fish are involved.

im sorry you need to explain to your nephew.

good luck fishing
So your saying if a lake has a bigger average size then more people catch fish?

good luck fishing to you also.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-09-2011, 01:37 PM
steelhead steelhead is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: south
Posts: 308
Default

chub


Fish from downstream of these lakes cannot go upstream and back into the lakes, but, fish in these lakes can move up and into any stream that flows into them. Kinda makes you think about how many fish in these closed systems make thier way downstream and are called as caught and kept or fished out by anglers. Maybee they just swam away? Hey, wait a sec!!! With that example, it would conclude that the oldman, and the Bow are stocked with trout. Whoodah thunk it!

Baitfish from these rivers and the many other varied species they hold cannot migrate into them creating closed systems. In smaller and small closed systems, (potholes and k lake examples) stocking is a required to maintain pop's due to angler harvest, bull trout eating stockies, pellicans, otters, cormorants, disease, starvation, and downstream movement, winter kill, summer kill, WOW thats alot of bad stuff to happen to stockies but in this province they call it fished out by baitchuckers. And, since thier trout, they are inclined to head for moving water and rivers, upstream or downstream. Flowing into and out of it yes, inside the lake, no.

Ever wonder if that Bow river rainbow may have came from k lakes? Maybee thats why theres an abundance of trout on the Bow river, they all came from the stocked lakes on the system. Interesting.

When the oldman dam was made, it became a closed system (we dont see walleyes in that lake and theres billions downstream), but, the river above held the great number of species of baitfish and forage in its system to thrive today. That is an example of a huge closed system. The higher up into the mountains a lake is made the less forage can be trapped as many species of baitfish do not agree with temperatures and sterile environments. Suckers, of course, are everywhere and tolerate alot. The suckers in K lakes have been there since the lakes inception as they were in the rivers to begin with. It just took a long time for the population to explode.


The size of the rivers and the amount of rivers in a closed system make a difference. K lakes, lots of small sterile rivers barely enough to promote spwaning. Oldman, many hundreds of miles of rivers and 3 larger rivers to feed it with many many spawning opps and a large nursery lake. Bullshead, one tiny lake, one mel****er runoff to feed it.

Funny thing a few buddies of mine thought of. With all the big fish in Bullshead requiring more oxygen to survive and in competition with decaying weeds, when it does winterkill, and i'm sure it will even with aeration ( many aerated lakes have winter and summer killed in this province) how many years will it take to catch any fish or one of quality size after such an accident? It wont be much of a quality lake then.


So, Suns example of rivers vs small closed systems does not fly, at all, no way. No matter what, a stocked lake will always have to be stocked. They are not sustainable. Unless they have a large healthy river system to spawn in and a large and varied forage base. None of which k lakes has.


STEELHEAD
__________________
official leader of the internet forum opposition party.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 01-09-2011, 01:38 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Perchville
Posts: 14,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
Sun wrote...


Answer...because from a management perspective it makes more sense in some places than all places.


So, in an area with an abundance of trout fishing in streams and lakes, Why does it make sense to make a quality fishery in K lakes? The rivers have huge fish too. Theres probably more trout anglers on the rivers than will be on that lake (and hiding from the watchfull eye of any enforcement). Now, I can understand a quality fishery on the prairies miles from quality trout, but why in the heartland of trout fishing? Keep the lakes for the kids to catch some dinks, the rivers are managed very well for the monsters they hold. On the prairies, good, in the mountains, bad.

The less they have to stock these lakes, the more eyes they have from anglers watching poachers, the more non-government agencies get involved the less the gov has to put money too. And, we see a lower budget. Pretty clear to me. its been getting lower in the last 15 years too. The less the gov has to do, the less they have to pay. Damn clear to me.

sun also wrote....

The Bow River for instance is a fishery that does not get stocked. Does fine. The Crowsnest is not stocked. The Oldman is not stocked. All these fisheries are going well without stocking. A put and take lake with no natural spawning...requires stocking.

They were all stocked at one time. With invasive species at the top of the list of invasives. They wanted a quality fishery back then too i guess.


You are using river ecosystems as an example to compare to lakes with no waterflow or a closed system. Your a BIO, you should know better. You cant compare the 2, at all, no way. That position doesnt stand, at all, no way. You just mentioned rivers, any lakes you care to share with the same successes as your river examples?


STEELHEAD

Simple answer...surprised you missed it...the Bow, Crow and Oldman are a long ways away...have great fishing but only because of stricter regulations that limit harvest. I am glad you helped make my point. Better regulations here will dramatically improve this lake in a region where there are very few lakes that can qualify for a quality fishery whereas still leaving tons of other lakes for put and take, quick harvest.

In this area alone...if someone wanted lots of small easy to catch great tasting fish in an awesome scenic location...you can go no further that Elbow Lake. Those brookies are awesome tasting...and while small are extremely plentiful since they reproduce like crazy. Therefore...this is also an example of a fishery that while small...is self sustaining and not in need of stocking :-)

You say the issue is clear on less money for enforcement because of "new regulations" but seriously...please just provide some justification insofar as the proof your theory is correct. Otherwise...again...just a nice theory to talk about...but fishing in Alberta has not suffered any noticeable loss after Bullshead became such a famous fishery.

Now your argument about invasive stocking is off topic and quite frankly proves nothing as both Bow and LKL and UKL have been stocked with Rainbows...but by your argument against invasives...at least the new stocking program for UKL and LKL looks to more native cutthroats and protecting native bull trout. I am happy you agree to this positive.


As for stocking of lakes with cutthroats and why we don't have many quality lakes...thanks for the segway...we don't have tons of lakes down south and very few lakes with large populations of cutts that can grow big with all the beneficial attributes meeting the quality fishery requirements. Most lakes down south are designated for the put and take fishery. The best thing about UKL and LKL is these lakes hold the potential for a great fishery that benefits everyone.

You make an obvious point however that lakes and rivers are different in management style, fishing technique and locations. Many people prefer fishing lakes over rivers. You need specialized boats or plans to put in and take out. Lake fishing in many ways is simpler for equipment. People that like fishing lakes should have the same opportunity to catch quality fish that regulations have endowed us with on some rivers. We can't continue to ignore lakes.

Thanks for the chat and I look forward to you providing some quality information about this proposed quality fishery.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-09-2011, 01:41 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Perchville
Posts: 14,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tungsten, View Post
This maybe true but for the lakes that do have these regs.Your chances of catching fish are excellent even for people that are not very experienced.

IMHO this is what its all about,nothing worse then spending a bunch of money on gas food and tackle only to be skunked.Then trying to explain to your 10 year old nephew why we didn't catch anything.

Now maybe you'll understand.
Kootenay Lake is pretty big...a different fishery all together...what regulations do they have out of curiosity? I can see why guys that want quality trout are forced to leave the province. While BC waters are more fertile...longer growing season etc. it is a shame our fishermen need to leave.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-09-2011, 01:42 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tungsten, View Post
So your saying if a lake has a bigger average size then more people catch fish?

good luck fishing to you also.
sorry poor explaination.....i meant the larger the fish the ratio is even greater for the good fisherman

should of said.....5 percent of the fisherman catch 95 percent of the fish

thanks for the corection
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-09-2011, 01:48 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Perchville
Posts: 14,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
If your want anyone to take anything that you write seriously then provide supporting information to back it up. Just because you say something is a fact doesn't make it so. Case in point, earlier this week I questioned you about where the facts were to support your statement that 94% of stocked fish were immediately caught. You admitted that you could not provide the supporting info yet you still post it as a fact (see your statement in bold #1 above).

Bold #2 - Show me the supporting information for this fact and how what happens at a small lake compares to Kan Lakes. They are usually stocked late in the Fall and are much bigger lakes. I highly doubt that they would be fished out within two weeks of being stocked so IMO it does not apply.

Bold #3 - You are saying that if someone voices an opinion it is a stated fact? Ah....ya.....okay. So if someone tells me that they think a quality fishery means catching and keeping several "eater" sized fish it is a stated fact and I should post it as a stated fact on this thread? I don't think so.

Bold #4 - If they put the same number of fish in every year how are the catch rates going to increase? Where is the logic.....Because the fish are bigger more of them will be caught?

Bold #5 - I could accept this as fact if a study was done to determine what the ramifications were of having more larger fish in the lake.

As for me campaigning against this proposal, I was quite happy to stay in the shadows and even helped you to maintain your credibility by quietly and diplomatically correcting you when I noticed you stating something as fact that any reasonable person would know was not possible to determine.

I came onto this thread with an open mind and I would have gladly signed the petition to support this proposal if I thought that it was a good idea. However, I have not read anything on the thread other than it would make it easier for grown ups to catch bigger fish as a reason to sign it. Had it been full of facts and information to support your position I may have seen it differently.

Although I admire and respect your determination in lobbying for this proposal, without studying the social, economic and environmental impacts of it first, how can anyone support it? Has anyone even contacted SRD to determine what the impact would be of having more larger fish in the lakes? Or, why the current regulation is in place to allow people to catch "eater" sized fish? How would this newly proposed regulation effect tourism and the local economy? There is a ton of more information that you need in order to be taken seriously. I'm sorry, but IMHO right now it just sounds like a few good 'ol boys got together on a Friday night over a few wobbly pops and came up with a plan to help them catch bigger fish.
I guess a large part of the disconnect comes from the fact that you must not of fished Bullshead after the regulation change. Is that a true statement? Seeing is often believing and catching is in the eye of the beholder. Without the successes of the past...I too would wonder about the turnout although my intuition and common sense thinking would lead to believe in a net benefit to the average angler. I would suggest you try that fishery and talk to as many people as I have to see what the impression of the before and after benefits are.

It is all fine and good to study to death something...but I am not sure you will ever get the exact answers you are looking for specific to each and every Quality Lake fishery proposal. Often history has the best lessons to learn and we have learned a lot to deem this to be a great idea.

I would suggest the specific questions regarding data to be forwarded to a F&W Bio and she what she/he has to say about the topic. In the meanwhile...I will make a few queries to see if I can get more "facts" insofar as studies for you.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-09-2011, 01:58 PM
HunterDave's Avatar
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 17,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryF View Post
Hunterdave, I was just curious as to your interest in these lakes as you are so oppossed to the proposed changes. There are another 15 or so lakes and ponds within 30 mins of K lakes that also get stocked to pull fish from, so I guess I am just not sure why making regs on these 2 are a problem. If they stop having to put 34,000 fish into K lakes all the time, they can start putting more of those fish into other areas to be pulled out for those that need to keep what they catch.

I also pay my fee's for fishing, and I would much rather my money go into enforcement and more CO's than growing fish for ppl to stock freezers with. The govt doesn't raise deer and elk for the hunters, so why are we doing it for fish? If hunting was run the way that fishing is I am sure that you would get real upset and would want changes also.
I'm not so opposed to the proposed changes as, more like, I don't understand the logic other than making it easier for adults to catch bigger fish. Nothing else has been presented. I reserve the right to change my mind though if the proposal is studied and presented in such a way that it convinces me that it is a good idea.

Growing bigger fish is not going to stop people from stocking their freezers. In fact, IMHO it would contribute to freezers getting stocked as much or more with bigger fish. Perhaps that is a valid point for this discussion. Maybe people figure that they can stock their freezer with bigger fish. If the possession limit is one fish, is everyone going to eat that one big fish before going back out to catch another one? Hmmmm.....food for thought.

Good comparison! The government doesn't tell me that I can only shoot a certain sized whitetail buck either. If they did, you bet that I'd be upset!!!!

Big game is a sustainable resource if it is managed correctly. Fishing can be as well in bodies of water where fish can spawn successfully. I think that a good start in those bodies of water would be to LEAVE the bigger spawners in those bodies of water and only take out the eating sized fish.
__________________
“The whole problem with any issue is that fools and fanatics are always certain of their position, while wise people are full of doubt and questions.” Bertrand Russell
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-09-2011, 02:11 PM
HunterDave's Avatar
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 17,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
I would suggest the specific questions regarding data to be forwarded to a F&W Bio and she what she/he has to say about the topic. In the meanwhile...I will make a few queries to see if I can get more "facts" insofar as studies for you.
Do you mean that I should contact F&W Bio? This is not my proposal. It's up to whoever wants the change to the regs to provide that info to the people that they are lobbying to sign the petition.

Don't make any queries for me, do it for you.

Just a side note: Putting the petition link in your signature profile and it will show up at the bottom of all your posts.
__________________
“The whole problem with any issue is that fools and fanatics are always certain of their position, while wise people are full of doubt and questions.” Bertrand Russell
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-09-2011, 02:21 PM
steelhead steelhead is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: south
Posts: 308
Default

5 percent of anglers catch 5 percent of the fish. The others die from shock from moving from a climate controlled tank and into a waterbody, winter,summerkill, predators who fish all day when no anglers are around and water quality such as alkalinity.

Sun said,


Simple answer...surprised you missed it...the Bow, Crow and Oldman are a long ways away...have great fishing but only because of stricter regulations that limit harvest.


I guess it s not the forage base and many feeder spawing streams that feed it. With all the crud Calgary feeds that river with, the bugs abound and fish feed easily and spawn in one of 2 major systems. its not better regulations that made it that way, it was Poop that did it. Along with the oldman and the crow. Talked about that lots on the FF calgary board. So no, I didnt help you and your point. You discredited yourself.


People dont want to go to Elbow lake and catch stunted Brookies, they want to drive right up to shore along k lakes and get a better view and slightly larger fish with a nice picnic area and boatlaunch. Maybee to make k lakes a quality fishery you can advertize your SINGLE, closed system example of where kids can fish, and they will all leave k lakes alone. Is that the only example of a healthy closed system you have? How about one without brookies? I thought invasives were off topic?


In another thread, you used saving tax dollars as an incentive to sign your petition. So yes, it will take money from the fisheries as a whole. Less takes to spend on it, the less the government has to pay. Thanks for that, its you helping my arguements now. Nice job.


You also said...


We can't continue to ignore lakes.


No, we cant, but some dont need as much care as others. K lakes doesnt need squat. How about the lakes in the rest of the province, now theres where we need help. Fixing them will keep people away from K lakes.

you added...

Thanks for the chat and I look forward to you providing some quality information about this proposed quality fishery.


I havent seen any quality information from you yet. Not a stick! A few others here see that also. Except for bullshead examples, and with that example, makes the comparison between 2 different lakes in 2 different regions and 2 different size of waterbodies. The fish stocked now just feed the bulls. Lots of big bulls in that lake!


These quality fisheries you want should be made where few opp's exist. thats not it the mountains, lots of quality already. These quality fisheries should be in Potholes on the prairies. Where no opp's exist. Lots of places to do that to and theres no quality fisheries surrounding them now.


HunterDave wrote....

Although I admire and respect your determination in lobbying for this proposal, without studying the social, economic and environmental impacts of it first, how can anyone support it? Has anyone even contacted SRD to determine what the impact would be of having more larger fish in the lakes? Or, why the current regulation is in place to allow people to catch "eater" sized fish? How would this newly proposed regulation effect tourism and the local economy? There is a ton of more information that you need in order to be taken seriously. I'm sorry, but IMHO right now it just sounds like a few good 'ol boys got together on a Friday night over a few wobbly pops and came up with a plan to help them catch bigger fish.


Man, I couldnt agree more. Big boys want bigger fish to brag about.



I agree with quality fisheries But not in the mountains, Prairie potholes from north to south, yes.


I agree more with predator control before more regs.


You thanked me for helping your case Sun, but I must thank you for helping mine show how much your just saying anything now to rally the troops to sign this petition. Your flawed data and arguments only bolster that fact.


STEELHEAD
__________________
official leader of the internet forum opposition party.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-09-2011, 02:32 PM
HunterDave's Avatar
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 17,139
Default

Steelhead - Man, Are your posts are hard to read. I can't tell who wrote what. Could you put statements that people wrote in quotes or italics?
__________________
“The whole problem with any issue is that fools and fanatics are always certain of their position, while wise people are full of doubt and questions.” Bertrand Russell
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-09-2011, 02:44 PM
steelhead steelhead is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: south
Posts: 308
Default

HunterDave....



Speaking as the official leader of the internet forum opposition party.........




...........NO.




STEELHEAD
__________________
official leader of the internet forum opposition party.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-09-2011, 02:47 PM
goldscud goldscud is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,323
Default

Steelhead, you suggest there are lot of quality lakes already available in the southern foothills/mountains. Besides Sparrow's Egg (special regulations), can you give me the name of another one. It's funny, I've never heard of a BC guy coming over here to fish our lakes...
You also believe the only place for a quality lake should be on the prairie. Do you have any waterbody suggestions that would meet the Quality lakes initiative conditions? There seems to be few prairie waterbodies that could sustain trout throughout the year without some help.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-09-2011, 02:49 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Perchville
Posts: 14,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
5 percent of anglers catch 5 percent of the fish. The others die from shock from moving from a climate controlled tank and into a waterbody, winter,summerkill, predators who fish all day when no anglers are around and water quality such as alkalinity.

Sun said,


Simple answer...surprised you missed it...the Bow, Crow and Oldman are a long ways away...have great fishing but only because of stricter regulations that limit harvest.


I guess it s not the forage base and many feeder spawing streams that feed it. With all the crud Calgary feeds that river with, the bugs abound and fish feed easily and spawn in one of 2 major systems. its not better regulations that made it that way, it was Poop that did it. Along with the oldman and the crow. Talked about that lots on the FF calgary board. So no, I didnt help you and your point. You discredited yourself.


People dont want to go to Elbow lake and catch stunted Brookies, they want to drive right up to shore along k lakes and get a better view and slightly larger fish with a nice picnic area and boatlaunch. Maybee to make k lakes a quality fishery you can advertize your SINGLE, closed system example of where kids can fish, and they will all leave k lakes alone. Is that the only example of a healthy closed system you have? How about one without brookies? I thought invasives were off topic?


In another thread, you used saving tax dollars as an incentive to sign your petition. So yes, it will take money from the fisheries as a whole. Less takes to spend on it, the less the government has to pay. Thanks for that, its you helping my arguements now. Nice job.


You also said...


We can't continue to ignore lakes.


No, we cant, but some dont need as much care as others. K lakes doesnt need squat. How about the lakes in the rest of the province, now theres where we need help. Fixing them will keep people away from K lakes.

you added...

Thanks for the chat and I look forward to you providing some quality information about this proposed quality fishery.


I havent seen any quality information from you yet. Not a stick! A few others here see that also. Except for bullshead examples, and with that example, makes the comparison between 2 different lakes in 2 different regions and 2 different size of waterbodies. The fish stocked now just feed the bulls. Lots of big bulls in that lake!


These quality fisheries you want should be made where few opp's exist. thats not it the mountains, lots of quality already. These quality fisheries should be in Potholes on the prairies. Where no opp's exist. Lots of places to do that to and theres no quality fisheries surrounding them now.


HunterDave wrote....

Although I admire and respect your determination in lobbying for this proposal, without studying the social, economic and environmental impacts of it first, how can anyone support it? Has anyone even contacted SRD to determine what the impact would be of having more larger fish in the lakes? Or, why the current regulation is in place to allow people to catch "eater" sized fish? How would this newly proposed regulation effect tourism and the local economy? There is a ton of more information that you need in order to be taken seriously. I'm sorry, but IMHO right now it just sounds like a few good 'ol boys got together on a Friday night over a few wobbly pops and came up with a plan to help them catch bigger fish.


Man, I couldnt agree more. Big boys want bigger fish to brag about.



I agree with quality fisheries But not in the mountains, Prairie potholes from north to south, yes.


I agree more with predator control before more regs.


You thanked me for helping your case Sun, but I must thank you for helping mine show how much your just saying anything now to rally the troops to sign this petition. Your flawed data and arguments only bolster that fact.


STEELHEAD
So your logic and facts tell you 95% of the fish stocked die before being caught? Strange...no studies have ever showed that fact before. It is not true.

Bow River fish grow big because of the food supply...again...not part of the topic. The reason why the population is high is because of the regulations limiting harvest. It proves that if you can grow them big then you can catch them big. Same as LKL and UKL.

You are right people would prefer to catch small fish that are easier to access by car then having to walk for a while to get to. We all know that. But then again...there are all the other lakes a poster listed that have excellent access to put and take trout. If you wanted a larger lake...Chain Lakes has tons.

You say that it is not the regulations that define the population of trout in the Bow River. Then you would state if their was no limit there would be the same number of trout to catch as their is now. I guess that is a fundamental fisheries management fact that we don't agree on. I believe the population of trout is defined by the controlled harvest. Uncontrolled harvest destroys the fishery. I wish you were correct...then every uncontrolled fishery in the World would be corrected over night.

Better spending tax payers dollars can mean stocking the same number of fish but allowing them to let nature grow them to a larger size before harvest. If there is a savings on trout that don't need to be stocked...why not put those extra fish into the smaller put and take lakes so that there are more freshly stocked 12 inchers for people? Who says not stocking them. The benefit to tax payers is a better quality fishery...hopefully for less money. What is wrong with that? I am all for less taxes. Still I want more money in the system...not less... But by making this a better fishery is not a vote for less money. You digress.

You like UKL and LKL as a small trout put and take fishery. Your right to that position is understandable. I hope you understand others rights to expect better than that. I hope in time... the regulations come into effect and you will appreciate it all the more.

You keep talking about predator control like you are against people harvesting. It could also mean you are against poachers. I am in favor of harvest and against poaching. However...I don't feel poachers are the root cause of over harvest. If you have a large population like Calgary near by...it does not take long to harvest the fish. On Allen Bill pond...one day I counted 100 people fishing a few days after stocking. Everyone was fishing...many were catching...almost all were harvesting. At 5 trout per person...if I recall the regs...it did not take too many weeks to harvest them all out. No poaching was necessary and 3 weeks later the lake was a ghost town.

You still support the regulations with your logic...you are adept at trying to twist the points but in the end hopefully people read enough to know for themselves what makes common sense and intuitively fits the puzzle.

If you stock 12 inch trout...people harvest them sooner than putting a 20 inch limit and allowing them to grow. Bullshead proved this works...that can not be contradicted as it is a proven fact.

It is a sad fact in Alberta we fight to preserve our 12 inch fisheries where in BC they fight to increase trout sizes. We have members lambasting this initiative yet leave the Province to fish Kootenay Lake for big rainbows. That leaves little option for larger quality fish near Calgary. Right now 3.5 - 4 hour drive is common for many desperately seeking larger fish but they travel to Bullshead. In time hopefully UKL and LKL will provide a similar fishery.

Sun
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-09-2011, 03:03 PM
HunterDave's Avatar
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 17,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
HunterDave....



Speaking as the official leader of the internet forum opposition party.........




...........NO.




STEELHEAD
__________________
“The whole problem with any issue is that fools and fanatics are always certain of their position, while wise people are full of doubt and questions.” Bertrand Russell
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-09-2011, 03:25 PM
steelhead steelhead is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: south
Posts: 308
Default

Anyhow, Sun, I made my points, yer twisting them into things i never said. Re read them if you have to. They are what I think and said, not what you think I said. Your not me. I do think you should have done a bit more research on the topic before heading it up. There will be people that will oppose it, and for good reasons.



On to Goldscud who wrote....... hunterdave, notice the quotes!


"Steelhead, you suggest there are lot of quality lakes already available in the southern foothills/mountains. Besides Sparrow's Egg (special regulations), can you give me the name of another one. It's funny, I've never heard of a BC guy coming over here to fish our lakes...
You also believe the only place for a quality lake should be on the prairie. Do you have any waterbody suggestions that would meet the Quality lakes initiative conditions? There seems to be few prairie waterbodies that could sustain trout throughout the year without some help."

Late edit, I misread your post. As for southern foothills and mountains, there are more rivers and small streams to fish with already existing quality regulations and amazing stream fishing. people from BC come here for the river fishing, not the lakes it seems. Most of our quality lakes are a 1-3 hour hike into the rocks, and there is where you find the true quality lakes. Thats where I go to get quality, and fish the streams along the way! Let the BCers get the stockie dinks. Most of thier lakes in BC are full of little gerrards also with big broodstock thrown in. They only have one or 2 lakes I would call quality, and none close to the southern AB border. Funny, I cant think of any! Just the Elk river. And its a river.


Pick a lake on any of the stocking lists in the PP zones. Any of those lakes can be made into a quality fishery. All of them. BUT, with what money is it gonna happen with? They can be dug out deeper, aerated, artificial reefs to raise forage, enlarged, canals made to divert runoff water to keep it full and a supply of water for dry areas. Heck, they spend millions on irrigation lakes, and they are all quality fisheries! Any pothole can be made into a QUALITY LAKE.

How about lobbying for a project that spends ALOT of money to create a quality project, not, no spending projects where the money for anything slowly dissapears? . And lobby the gov for more money to create these projects and pay for enforcement! Everyone blames the poachers and anglers for the lack of quality in this province, but never Government spending. And that is absolutely crackers!


I have spent alot of time in many provinces in the last few years. They have public service announcements on tv, clean fresh painted signs, publications for almost every aspect of angling, government funded workers to clean up and beautify, well managed fisheries as a whole, no 12 year wait to figure out regs, if a problem exists, they fix it. I cant believe the money other provinces spew out to creat quality fisheries. Its astronomical! And they are all poorer than us!!

Now, if you have ever been to many other provinces and seen what I wrote above, why would anyone from BC want to come to Alberta to fish as there is NONE of the above, no trees and wind and dust, lots of wind and dust!

No wonder you havent heard of anybody coming from BC to Alberta to fish our lakes. Why would they when they have all I wrote about above.

I hope that answers your queries, goldscud.



No matter what, Quality can only be provided to all by spending money. Make the Government spend money, lobby for that, Make them spend your tax dollars to create and manage better for us.


STEELHEAD
__________________
official leader of the internet forum opposition party.

Last edited by steelhead; 01-09-2011 at 03:53 PM. Reason: i missed Goldscuds foothills point
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-09-2011, 03:36 PM
HunterDave's Avatar
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 17,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
I guess a large part of the disconnect comes from the fact that you must not of fished Bullshead after the regulation change. Is that a true statement? Seeing is often believing and catching is in the eye of the beholder. Without the successes of the past...I too would wonder about the turnout although my intuition and common sense thinking would lead to believe in a net benefit to the average angler. I would suggest you try that fishery and talk to as many people as I have to see what the impression of the before and after benefits are.

It is all fine and good to study to death something...but I am not sure you will ever get the exact answers you are looking for specific to each and every Quality Lake fishery proposal. Often history has the best lessons to learn and we have learned a lot to deem this to be a great idea.
Sorry Sundancefisher, I didn't mean to ignore your question. No, I have never fished Bullshead Reservoir however I know a little about it. I think that to say a certain stocking program or regulation will work in one body of water because it worked in a different body of water is simplifying things somewhat. I know that it isn't true. Almost every body of water is different, whether it be the geographical location, water quality, food supply, water level fluctuations and on and on.

Are you suggesting that Bullshead and the Kan Lakes are near identical in every way so what holds true for one should be adopted for the other?

There is no requirement to study something to death but some study is required. You may not get the answer that you are looking for (ie. Kan Lakes might not be able to support the amount of large fish projected) but knowing that before tabling this proposal would probably be a good thing to know.

Case in point - About 20 years ago I was involved with introducing Rainbow trout into a lake in Petawawa, Ontario. I had a choice of 5 different lakes to chose from and I worked with MNR to determine which lake would be the best choice. Even though all 5 bodies of water looked the same and were in the same geographical location it was determined that 2 lakes were not suitable.

I realize that this petition is not about introducing a new species into the lakes but the point that I'm trying to make is that bodies of water are different.
__________________
“The whole problem with any issue is that fools and fanatics are always certain of their position, while wise people are full of doubt and questions.” Bertrand Russell
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-09-2011, 03:40 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,655
Default

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.
its not sad we have to travel to seek trophy rainbows....its part of the experience. like a hunter going to africa to hunt exotics....please dont suggest we stock elephants in pp1 so they dont have to travel to africa
B.C has their problems too.

i also believe there is lurkers on here. lol . because they are very successful in catching the fish you desire already. im also very leary of many fish nettings from the Gov......its my opinion they are very book smart but as far as water smart not so much. I'd be very interested in the netting details

I know your a powerful guy on this forum and many are afraid to say anything. which is fine you probably have done many things to deserve this respect..congats.

i openly invite you to make the trip with me to the koot and get this 20inch rainbow thing out of your system.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-09-2011, 03:54 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Perchville
Posts: 14,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Sorry Sundancefisher, I didn't mean to ignore your question. No, I have never fished Bullshead Reservoir however I know a little about it. I think that to say a certain stocking program or regulation will work in one body of water because it worked in a different body of water is simplifying things somewhat. I know that it isn't true. Almost every body of water is different, whether it be the geographical location, water quality, food supply, water level fluctuations and on and on.

Are you suggesting that Bullshead and the Kan Lakes are near identical in every way so what holds true for one should be adopted for the other?

There is no requirement to study something to death but some study is required. You may not get the answer that you are looking for (ie. Kan Lakes might not be able to support the amount of large fish projected) but knowing that before tabling this proposal would probably be a good thing to know.

Case in point - About 20 years ago I was involved with introducing Rainbow trout into a lake in Petawawa, Ontario. I had a choice of 5 different lakes to chose from and I worked with MNR to determine which lake would be the best choice. Even though all 5 bodies of water looked the same and were in the same geographical location it was determined that 2 lakes were not suitable.

I realize that this petition is not about introducing a new species into the lakes but the point that I'm trying to make is that bodies of water are different.
I appreciate you responding. I understand that with the success of Bullshead that the government and fishing interest groups have put their heads together and did some research to see what the requirements are for a quality fishery like Bullshead in other areas of the Province. They placed an emphasis on finding lakes that meet a minimum requirement. There are very, very few of them. As such my understanding is that these lakes meet that requirement. As such...given that all I understand about the subject and my experience...I can see the benefits. Some may disagree but I do have to vote based upon the information that is out there. To find out exactly what the requirements are...maybe the lead poster can comment.

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.

Now...I can not say if F&W will agree with this initiative. They may review it and say no for some reason I am not aware of. Still...we are asking them to look at it. If in fact it meets all requirements...why not give it a try. The benefits IMHO will out weigh the short term concerns.

Your concerns about different water bodies variability will be addressed by the F&W biologists final report on the project...not by this petition.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-09-2011, 03:56 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Perchville
Posts: 14,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
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.
Curious...are you suggesting you favor the introduction of pike to non native waters holding trout in BC?
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-09-2011, 04:02 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
Curious...are you suggesting you favor the introduction of pike to non native waters holding trout in BC?
ya thats what gawd forbid means......wow

i wish i could change my vote to....i just dont care
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-09-2011, 04:12 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Perchville
Posts: 14,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
ya thats what gawd forbid means......wow

i wish i could change my vote to....i just dont care
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
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-09-2011, 04:20 PM
steelhead steelhead is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: south
Posts: 308
Default

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
__________________
official leader of the internet forum opposition party.
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 -7. The time now is 10:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.