Proposed Regulation Changes For Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes

[beedhead]

Hi Fellow Anglers. A good friend and I attended the ASRD Round table meeting last week concerning regulation changes to The Kananaskis Lakes. It was a very informative meeting, and we had a lot of support. We have started a Petition (that can be signed on the link provided below) that proposes new regulations.


The current regulations for the Upper and Lower Kananaskis lakes are: "Open all year-Trout (except bull trout) limit 3; Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout over 30 cm; Bait Ban." We feel that these lakes have the potential to provide QUALITY FISHERIES, provided that the fish are allowed to live long enough. To that end, we are proposing that the following regulations be implemented, so as to permit QUALITY FISHERIES to develop: "Open all year-Trout (except bull trout) limit 1; Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout over 50 cm; Bait Ban."

Some of the issues we are faced with are that: Catchable-sized (20-30 cm) Cutthroat Trout are being stocked in both Kananaskis Lakes. Many stocked fish are being harvested shortly after stocking. Current size limit provides no protection for spawners. Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout can grow to a very large size (> 70 cm) and live to up to 11 years in the Kananaskis Lakes. For these reasons, we feel that Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes provide the best opportunity for creation of readily accessible QUALITY FISHERIES in the area west of Calgary. This initiative would support SRD's commitment to develop more quality stocked trout fisheries in Alberta, following a survey which showed strong angler support for the development of more quality stocked trout fisheries in Alberta.


It is unlikely that a 50-cm maximum size limit would work as well as the proposed 50-cm minimum size limit, since fishing pressure on the Kananaskis Lakes is great enough that most of the cutthroat/rainbow trout would be harvested before they reached 50 cm. As a result, it is unlikely that a 50-cm maximum size limit would greatly improve catch rates or fish size.

The proposed regulation is not strictly C&R, since it still allows anglers to harvest cutthroat/rainbow over 50 cm. All that is required is for harvest-oriented anglers to exercise some restraint for a few years, while the number and average size of fish increases in the lakes. In the mean time, anglers will be able to enjoy a fishery that improves as it develops into a QUALITY FISHERY, which is something that an increasing number of anglers have been requesting in recent years. For the area west of Calgary, Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes provide the best opportunity to create readily accessible QUALITY FISHERIES.

While the proposed 50-cm minimum size limit won't protect as many cutthroat/rainbow trout spawners as would a 60-cm minimum size limit or total C&R regulation, it will still protect more spawners than the current regulations. If, in the future, enough anglers wish to have the minimum size limit increased to further increase the average size of fish and quality of the fishery, this is something that can be done then.

Thank you so much for your time.

Jeff Wilson & Jake Gotta.

Link to the petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/dekkbeed/petition.html


The New Proposed Regulations Poster.





Petition link

[Dust1n]

id b happy to see that happen

[Jimboy]

Originally Posted by beedhead

Hi Fellow Anglers. A good friend and I attended the ASRD Round table meeting last week concerning regulation changes to The Kananaskis Lakes. It was a very informative meeting, and we had a lot of support. We have started a Petition (that can be signed on the link provided below) that proposes new regulations.


The current regulations for the Upper and Lower Kananaskis lakes are: "Open all year-Trout (except bull trout) limit 3; Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout over 30 cm; Bait Ban." We feel that these lakes have the potential to provide QUALITY FISHERIES, provided that the fish are allowed to live long enough. To that end, we are proposing that the following regulations be implemented, so as to permit QUALITY FISHERIES to develop: "Open all year-Trout (except bull trout) limit 1; Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout over 50 cm; Bait Ban."

Some of the issues we are faced with are that: Catchable-sized (20-30 cm) Cutthroat Trout are being stocked in both Kananaskis Lakes. Many stocked fish are being harvested shortly after stocking. Current size limit provides no protection for spawners. Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout can grow to a very large size (> 70 cm) and live to up to 11 years in the Kananaskis Lakes. For these reasons, we feel that Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes provide the best opportunity for creation of readily accessible QUALITY FISHERIES in the area west of Calgary. This initiative would support SRD's commitment to develop more quality stocked trout fisheries in Alberta, following a survey which showed strong angler support for the development of more quality stocked trout fisheries in Alberta.


It is unlikely that a 50-cm maximum size limit would work as well as the proposed 50-cm minimum size limit, since fishing pressure on the Kananaskis Lakes is great enough that most of the cutthroat/rainbow trout would be harvested before they reached 50 cm. As a result, it is unlikely that a 50-cm maximum size limit would greatly improve catch rates or fish size.

The proposed regulation is not strictly C&R, since it still allows anglers to harvest cutthroat/rainbow over 50 cm. All that is required is for harvest-oriented anglers to exercise some restraint for a few years, while the number and average size of fish increases in the lakes. In the mean time, anglers will be able to enjoy a fishery that improves as it develops into a QUALITY FISHERY, which is something that an increasing number of anglers have been requesting in recent years. For the area west of Calgary, Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes provide the best opportunity to create readily accessible QUALITY FISHERIES.

While the proposed 50-cm minimum size limit won't protect as many cutthroat/rainbow trout spawners as would a 60-cm minimum size limit or total C&R regulation, it will still protect more spawners than the current regulations. If, in the future, enough anglers wish to have the minimum size limit increased to further increase the average size of fish and quality of the fishery, this is something that can be done then.

Thank you so much for your time.

Jeff Wilson & Jake Gotta.

Link to the petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/dekkbeed/petition.html


The New Proposed Regulations Poster.





Petition link

Very nice , another step to encourage me not to go fishing or even buy a lic , l love fresh fish and if l,m spending x amount of bucks on gas to go fishing l expect to at least bring home enough fish for the family , one fish dont cut it , l,m not a kiss and release fanatic , sitting there trying to catch a fish only to let it go makes no sense to me ,and if l just want the feel of a tug on my line , then l,ll attach my fishin line to my dog , now thats a real fight , l,m a hook and cook man.

[RayL42]

I would support the change if it was on the lower only. If they wanted large Cutthroats on the upper they should never have stocked the Bulls. The fishery should be for every one and if the proposed changes are made to the upper lake then it will become another fishery for the experienced catch and release fisher only.

As for the lower from what I understand it has the ability to support spawning and has always had a native population of bull trout. I would therefore support changes to the lower that made it more then a stocked pond.

[aulrich]

I am for the creation of trophy fisheries, as long as it is balanced with fisheries that are managed for numbers and harvest. But do those lakes have the prey base to support significan numbers of large fish.

Next on the list, get them to try and establish ciscos/lake whitefish or something the lakers in spray will eat to get those bigger.

[thumper]

I like seeing the kids and young families fishing these lakes with a good expectation of catching a fish or 2 for the campfire. The lakes are easily accessible for the hatchery trucks to stock, and people don't need a lot of expensive equipment or pleasure-boat licenses to fish from shore.

For them, this is already a QUALITY FISHERY
On the poster, I believe that QUALITY FISHERY should be changed to TROPHY FISHERY to better reflect what is being proposed.

With the severe draw-down of these reservoirs, there's little aquatic vegetation to provide the insect life needed for a large, year-round biomass of fish, and I'd rather see a largely 'put & take' fishery here for the more 'casual' fisher (families/kids/tourists).

As the chart indicates, there is an existing population of big (+50 cm) fish here. If the trophy fisherman want, they can target them and leave the hatchery fish for the kids. Or, utilize one of the many 'hike-in' Kananaskis lakes for this purpose, where casual fishers are not as likely to frequent.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Jimboy

Very nice , another step to encourage me not to go fishing or even buy a lic , l love fresh fish and if l,m spending x amount of bucks on gas to go fishing l expect to at least bring home enough fish for the family , one fish dont cut it , l,m not a kiss and release fanatic , sitting there trying to catch a fish only to let it go makes no sense to me ,and if l just want the feel of a tug on my line , then l,ll attach my fishin line to my dog , now thats a real fight , l,m a hook and cook man.

There were a lot of guys that thought the same thing as you when the Bullshead regulation change was proposed.

One thing you have to take into account is that a 12 inch rainbow has far less meat than a 22 inch rainbow. A 22 inch rainbow probably has more meat than 5 - 12 inch rainbows or more. So I would like you to consider these points such once the fish sizes catch up to the regulations that you will benefit 2 fold. Firstly you will get to keep one large rainbow that will feed a family...secondly you will have a lot more fun fighting a larger size class of trout.

Quality fishery does not mean catch and release fishery. It just means when you catch a fish it is big enough to give you a fight.

I would also say that the times are gone when you could justify the time to fish and buy gas versus the pounds of fish returned home. There are just too many people in Alberta fishing and to be fair to your fellow anglers...the resource can not justify everyone keeping their limits every time they go out. You seem to be dissing the catch and release folks...but if not for them, your personal limits would probably drop to 10% of where they are at now. So remember IMHO...as a fishing community, we are all working together to make this a great "recreational" activity...and not purely a grocery shopping trip.

Cheers

Sun

[Pikebreath]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

I would also say that the times are gone when you could justify the time to fish and buy gas versus the pounds of fish returned home. There are just too many people in Alberta fishing and to be fair to your fellow anglers...the resource can not justify everyone keeping their limits every time they go out. You seem to be dissing the catch and release folks...but if not for them, your personal limits would probably drop to 10% of where they are at now. So remember IMHO...as a fishing community, we are all working together to make this a great "recreational" activity...and not purely a grocery shopping trip.

Cheers

Sun

Sundance,,,, great point, C&R type anglers have indeed been "subsidizing" the fishery allowing the catch and keep types to catch more fish and still keep a few.

[aulrich]

Ironically the bow is not too short of 20" ers as well.

[Woolly Bugger]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

There were a lot of guys that thought the same thing as you when the Bullshead regulation change was proposed.

One thing you have to take into account is that a 12 inch rainbow has far less meat than a 22 inch rainbow. A 22 inch rainbow probably has more meat than 5 - 12 inch rainbows or more. So I would like you to consider these points such once the fish sizes catch up to the regulations that you will benefit 2 fold. Firstly you will get to keep one large rainbow that will feed a family...secondly you will have a lot more fun fighting a larger size class of trout.

Quality fishery does not mean catch and release fishery. It just means when you catch a fish it is big enough to give you a fight.

I would also say that the times are gone when you could justify the time to fish and buy gas versus the pounds of fish returned home. There are just too many people in Alberta fishing and to be fair to your fellow anglers...the resource can not justify everyone keeping their limits every time they go out. You seem to be dissing the catch and release folks...but if not for them, your personal limits would probably drop to 10% of where they are at now. So remember IMHO...as a fishing community, we are all working together to make this a great "recreational" activity...and not purely a grocery shopping trip.

Cheers

Sun

Well said Sun.

[Dust1n]

you know what they need some lakes strickly catch and realse for sport fisherman and some catch and keep all catches for people who like to have fresh fish so you can have the best of both worlds

I'd love to see this regulation brought in. As well as rainbows being stocked again in upper kananaskis. Whoever's bright idea it was to get rid of the rainbows in upper kananaskis and stock bull trout/cutthroat should be smacked around.

[The Elkster]

I would also support ONE of the two lakes going this route. Lower K would provide tonnes of opportunity for any special interest group wanting a trophy fishery. That lake could sustain hundreds of catch and release fishers without crowding. The upper lake however should return to rainbow stocking and they should keep the limit as is at least for that species. Upper K is plenty big enough to support a managed Cutty and bull population along with a put and take rainbow fishery.

In general I am leary about this direction as both lakes produced and still produce nice fish without the micromanagement from a special interest groups. The only thing that has changed lately is we lost a strong rainbow fishery. The sign of a healthy lake isn't just big fish. Nature doesn't selectively take only large fish...what about birds taking all those <50cm fish so why do we think thats a good idea. This isn't a resource strength issue this is a personal preference issue.

In the end these are all stocked fish. Something to keep in mind.

[75ft Arborist]

Originally Posted by hunter49

I'd love to see this regulation brought in. As well as rainbows being stocked again in upper kananaskis. Whoever's bright idea it was to get rid of the rainbows in upper kananaskis and stock bull trout/cutthroat should be smacked around.

X2 and i support the smacking

[pikester]

Originally Posted by Fish Hunter7

you know what they need some lakes strickly catch and realse for sport fisherman and some catch and keep all catches for people who like to have fresh fish so you can have the best of both worlds

Such a system is already in place generally speaking in Alberta, there are lots of "stocky ponds" all across the province for the meat anglers & several rivers, streams, & lakes that are either fully C&R or have a very limited retention allotment for C&R people. The biggest complaint I hear from meat anglers is "We need to be able to keep fish from more places than the trout ponds because all you can catch there is 8"-12" trout!" An ironic complaint to be sure.

There are some lakes which puzzle me however, such as Pine which is a very popular lake containing a decent variety of species & at first glance at the regs looks like a good place to fish for the day & go home with a feed of fish. When you really break it down however, there is a 0 retention on walleye, a perch limit of 5 which basically means you might as well not even fish for them, 3 burbot (of which I have never hooked even 1), & 3 pike over 25" of which I have only caught two in my life that big there. I asked a F&W officer about the ridiculous 5 perch limit & she said it was to "discourage the keeping of perch" there! I don't understand why they don't just turn it into a C&R lake & be done with it, wouldn't change things much aside from keeping a few more snot rockets out of the frying pan.

Another option for lakes like Pine would be to make them C&R for the summer & then have a 1 walleye & 10 perch daily limit from ice up to March 1st or something. Maybe it's just me but I might only keep 3 or 4 fish over the whole summer but in the winter I feel jipped if I don't go home with at least a couple for a meal.

[goldscud]

I am all for "balanced numbers" of lakes for catch and kill vs. quality/trophy/catch and release. Let see...there is less than 20 special regulation lakes in all of Alberta and hundreds of lakes where you can kill fish for the table. Therefore to balance things out we need to increase the number of special regulation lakes by a significant number.
As far as food in the Kananaskis lakes, there is large population of Mysis shrimp that are consumed by both the Bull and rainbow trout. Additionally there is a pretty good sucker population that adds small fish to the system every year.

Cutthroat trout were added to the Upper lake to return the fish population to a more natural state. This has been the plan for many areas across North America. It seems some feel they would rather have Rainbows than Cutthroats in the Upper lake. Can someone tell me why they don't like the Cutthroats? In my experience they are easier to catch (and therefore should be easier to get in the freezer).
I like the idea of a lake with really big fish within a couple of hours of home. Then I don't have to drive to BC to catch some quality fish. I pay for my license every year and would love to catch rainbows that are more than 12".
I have had the opportunity to catch fish over 25" in Kananaskis and it is a blast. The chance to catch them more frequently would be awesome.

[fishpro]

As a person who wants more quality fisheries, I will say that I do support this and have signed the petition already. However, I also see the need for put and take fisheries. For those who are opposed to this, keep in mind that there are a lot of other fisheries created where you can keep more fish. Currently most lakes are catch and keep fisheries, and the fishermen wanting quality lakes have very few places to fish.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by fishpro

As a person who wants more quality fisheries, I will say that I do support this and have signed the petition already. However, I also see the need for put and take fisheries. For those who are opposed to this, keep in mind that there are a lot of other fisheries created where you can keep more fish. Currently most lakes are catch and keep fisheries, and the fishermen wanting quality lakes have very few places to fish.

Not sure if you agree but I categorize these regulation changes as a put and take fishery. It is just we have an initial delay of a year or two until the first stocking reaches 20 inches...then obviously...they will get harvested. Thereafter...every year trout will be stocked...but every year the next batch to grow to 20 inches will be harvested.

I still believe as mentioned above...the recreational benefits happen for all...and actually these changes benefit those that wish to kill trout more so than catch and release anglers. The harvesters get the benefit of larger, more exciting trout to catch...and an awesome larger trout to eat...

[pikester]

Originally Posted by beedhead

Hi Fellow Anglers. A good friend and I attended the ASRD Round table meeting last week concerning regulation changes to The Kananaskis Lakes. It was a very informative meeting, and we had a lot of support. We have started a Petition (that can be signed on the link provided below) that proposes new regulations.


The current regulations for the Upper and Lower Kananaskis lakes are: "Open all year-Trout (except bull trout) limit 3; Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout over 30 cm; Bait Ban." We feel that these lakes have the potential to provide QUALITY FISHERIES, provided that the fish are allowed to live long enough. To that end, we are proposing that the following regulations be implemented, so as to permit QUALITY FISHERIES to develop: "Open all year-Trout (except bull trout) limit 1; Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout over 50 cm; Bait Ban."

Some of the issues we are faced with are that: Catchable-sized (20-30 cm) Cutthroat Trout are being stocked in both Kananaskis Lakes. Many stocked fish are being harvested shortly after stocking. Current size limit provides no protection for spawners. Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout can grow to a very large size (> 70 cm) and live to up to 11 years in the Kananaskis Lakes. For these reasons, we feel that Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes provide the best opportunity for creation of readily accessible QUALITY FISHERIES in the area west of Calgary. This initiative would support SRD's commitment to develop more quality stocked trout fisheries in Alberta, following a survey which showed strong angler support for the development of more quality stocked trout fisheries in Alberta.


It is unlikely that a 50-cm maximum size limit would work as well as the proposed 50-cm minimum size limit, since fishing pressure on the Kananaskis Lakes is great enough that most of the cutthroat/rainbow trout would be harvested before they reached 50 cm. As a result, it is unlikely that a 50-cm maximum size limit would greatly improve catch rates or fish size.

The proposed regulation is not strictly C&R, since it still allows anglers to harvest cutthroat/rainbow over 50 cm. All that is required is for harvest-oriented anglers to exercise some restraint for a few years, while the number and average size of fish increases in the lakes. In the mean time, anglers will be able to enjoy a fishery that improves as it develops into a QUALITY FISHERY, which is something that an increasing number of anglers have been requesting in recent years. For the area west of Calgary, Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes provide the best opportunity to create readily accessible QUALITY FISHERIES.

Although I tend to agree with you in principle, I think Thumper addresses two very valid points; the proposal points to development of a trophy fishery as opposed to improving the quality of the fishery in general. The moniker of "quality fishery" is a very objective term which is open to personal interpretation. By specifying the desire to create a "trophy fishery" you will allow people to polarize for or against this proposal. Clarifying this point might even help garner more support for you.

The other point Thumper makes about water fluctuation affecting the biomass of the littoral zone especially in the upper lake is what I have been told is the second biggest reason (next to quality spawning habitat) for lack of a productively self sustaining fishery in any lake or reservoir. How much of an impact did your committee see this as having on the fishery?

[The Elkster]

IMO the upper lake is ideal for a multi species management system. Forget this "natural" crud with the cutties and bulls. The lakes are manmade reservoirs that would be nothing but a puddle without human intervention to begin with. Cutties and Bulls can stay. Make them C&R or any other size/slot limit and leave the rainbow as catch and keep with some yearly stocking. Is there a problem with having everyone content? Oh did I mention the mysis shrimp are also non-native introductions...ahhhhh natural. Yup we're gettin' close.

[fishpro]

Originally Posted by The Elkster

IMO the upper lake is ideal for a multi species management system. Forget this "natural" crud with the cutties and bulls. The lakes are manmade reservoirs that would be nothing but a puddle without human intervention to begin with. Cutties and Bulls can stay. Make them C&R or any other size/slot limit and leave the rainbow as catch and keep with some yearly stocking. Is there a problem with having everyone content? Oh did I mention the mysis shrimp are also non-native introductions...ahhhhh natural. Yup we're gettin' close.

If we could do that it would be great, unfortunately it would be extremely difficult to establish a fishery where cutts were protected and the rainbows weren't. The simple reason for this is that a very high number of fishermen cannot tell the difference between the two, so it would be hard to control.

[Heron]

bump 128? Perhaps this thread should be pinned.

I fully support this and would support a complete shift accross the province for more of these fisheries.

One day I sat down with Barry`s mag and tried to count the trout fisheries that I could reasonably (or unreasonably) drive to in a day from Sherwood Park. The number was roughly 35. 1 or perhaps 2 of those have special regs. To me that is ridiculous. The area just west of Edmonton is a good example. Spring, Star, Chickakoo, Sauer, East Pit, what use to be Hasse, Eden and of course Muir are all within a fairly short drive of each other. Why is only 1 of these special regs?

P.S. I don`t see very many children and elderly at these waters and in my opinion you would see more grandparents with there grandchildren at higher quality fisheries. Wouldn`t that be a nice thing.

[ULTRAlite]

Signed - Full support for creating quality fisheries!

[Tungsten,]

Signed, only 137,as i type this theres 671 users online.Come on people,parents and grand parents.

There not asking for much here just a simple regulation change.If not for you then do it for your kids.

[Sundancefisher]

Link to the petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/dekkbeed/petition.html

180!!!

AWESOME!!!!!!

[Sundancefisher]

Bump

265