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 94 68.12%
No 27 19.57%
Don't Care 17 12.32%
Voters: 138. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old 01-13-2011, 06:26 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
No, I haven't signed the petition.

In fact, if I fished there all of the time I'd be starting my own petition to try to head this one off. Personally, I'd rather catch three harder to get 20" trout per day that you are currently allowed in Kan Lake rather than only one easy to catch one. I'm sure that everyone understood that when they signed the poll so they deserve what they get if this passes.

You guys down in Calgary can reduce your possession limits all that you want as long as you don't try to come up this way and do it. As soon as the weather warms up a bit a few of us are headed to Carson Lake to bring home our 5 trout limits and I'm pretty sure that some of them will be +20" if we want to keep them that big. It's nice to have that option.
That is a shame. So you are totally opposed to all quality fisheries. But you have not even fished one by the sounds of it.
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 01-13-2011, 08:14 AM
steelhead steelhead is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: south
Posts: 308
Default

I would say its about stopping the SRD from just making more rules to have a reason not to spend a cent to do anything. Its a bad precedent to set. Rules dont keep people honest, enforcement does.

Then they move them trout rules over to manage walleyes and Pike cause it worked soooo well for a trout pond, well, its gotta work for the Pike and walleyes too. Keep all the spawners, great Idea. Works for stocked trout, but not for self sustaining walleye and pike populations. I guess ALL the other provinces and many many states got it wrong in thier management, and Alberta has been right all the time. Can ya imagine that!


Its also about very few individuals ideas of how fishing should be. Catch and release and bigger fish to fit thier ego's and picture frames. So much so that they dont consider anyone else when thinking this stuff up.

Theres not one person here thats made up a good definition of quality yet. Quality to who, evryone, or just the 300 that signed the petition. Not every angler goes to FLY shops and internet boards. How about a petition at the grocery store or fish and game accociations not affiliated with trout?

Sun and GaryF, people want to keep fish too. I know its hard to get it into your heads, but yes, people do like keeping fish, and not big mud trout, little panfries. Many of them want to go fishing to keep a few for the pan. Its legal and a part of life, living, growing up and a tool to get youngsters to respect the resource. If you make rules to prevent take, then the poachers are the only ones who win, and with no enforcement, they win all the time. Theres still bait containers found and cut up small fish and entrails found in bullshead, muir, and beaver once in a while. I guess all those eyes you talked about being out there didnt help at all.


But its all about your ideals, your thoughts on how it should be done, your reasoning is right, your quest for quality. And from many of your responses, you have no desire or want to look at the broader picture. There is a broader picture, but its wrong in your eyes.


And GarryF, we asked for your top 10 list, not the SRD's top 4 list of links. I'd rather see your humble opinions on why, just like the rest of us did. So yah, do like we did, and make a list that we can cut up with lame opinionated, and words in our mouth responses like the ones that you and Sun have graced our pages with. Or are ya yeller? Not prepared to look stupid like you made the rest of us out to be?


HunterDave and I put forward very real concerns and ones backed by conservation strategies put in place for 15 years and in some cases, decades. But i guess thier not correct now. Not in the light of a quality fishery boom. How interesting how staunch opinions of the past have changed to open the doors of one small sectors ideals to change the future. I have seen every post on the fly anglers boards, I see what you guys want, i see what you guys complain about, I see what you guys see fishing should be like. I see what people on this board want and what fishing should be like. 2 very different perspectives, but who is right, really? I see you guys call this board the redneck board!!LOL Have you lowered yourselves to be here? I bet you think you have.


Calling out and shrugging off real concerns of other sectors of angling like your the only ones that are right, and everyone else is wrong, well, I guess we get what we have for fisheries today. More complaints than quality reports.


I do not agree with this quality fishery on these 2 lakes. A single specie pond, like beaver and bullshead closer to Calgary, yes, but not a self-sustaining system that is already quality. I guess a 25" plus bull isnt quality but a 20 inch cutt is. I guess all the foothills and high mountain streams that surround these lakes arent quality either as you see a need for these quality lakes deep within them. According to you fellas.


STEELHEAD
__________________
official leader of the internet forum opposition party.

Last edited by steelhead; 01-13-2011 at 08:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 01-13-2011, 08:39 AM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
No, I haven't signed the petition.


You guys down in Calgary can reduce your possession limits all that you want as long as you don't try to come up this way and do it. As soon as the weather warms up a bit a few of us are headed to Carson Lake to bring home our 5 trout limits and I'm pretty sure that some of them will be +20" if we want to keep them that big. It's nice to have that option.

Hey Hunter...

You must have been pleased as all get out with the Regional Bio. responsible for taking Carson from 14 lbs. > 14". Thank God he retired to be - - - are your ready for this - - - - President of the Alberta Fish and Game Assoc. And at one Roundtable Meeting Proposed making all trout lakes into Perch Lakes.

I've watch SRD destroy lake after lake by poor management practices. It has taken no studies of any kind to reduce the ability of nearly all the trout lakes in this Province to produce any fish over 14".

Don
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 01-13-2011, 08:56 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
I would say its about stopping the SRD from just making more rules to have a reason not to spend a cent to do anything. Its a bad precedent to set. Rules dont keep people honest, enforcement does.

Then they move them trout rules over to manage walleyes and Pike cause it worked soooo well for a trout pond, well, its gotta work for the Pike and walleyes too. Keep all the spawners, great Idea. Works for stocked trout, but not for self sustaining walleye and pike populations. I guess ALL the other provinces and many many states got it wrong in thier management, and Alberta has been right all the time. Can ya imagine that!


Its also about very few individuals ideas of how fishing should be. Catch and release and bigger fish to fit thier ego's and picture frames. So much so that they dont consider anyone else when thinking this stuff up.

Theres not one person here thats made up a good definition of quality yet. Quality to who, evryone, or just the 300 that signed the petition. Not every angler goes to FLY shops and internet boards. How about a petition at the grocery store or fish and game accociations not affiliated with trout?

Sun and GaryF, people want to keep fish too. I know its hard to get it into your heads, but yes, people do like keeping fish, and not big mud trout, little panfries. Many of them want to go fishing to keep a few for the pan. Its legal and a part of life, living, growing up and a tool to get youngsters to respect the resource. If you make rules to prevent take, then the poachers are the only ones who win, and with no enforcement, they win all the time. Theres still bait containers found and cut up small fish and entrails found in bullshead, muir, and beaver once in a while. I guess all those eyes you talked about being out there didnt help at all.


But its all about your ideals, your thoughts on how it should be done, your reasoning is right, your quest for quality. And from many of your responses, you have no desire or want to look at the broader picture. There is a broader picture, but its wrong in your eyes.


And GarryF, we asked for your top 10 list, not the SRD's top 4 list of links. I'd rather see your humble opinions on why, just like the rest of us did. So yah, do like we did, and make a list that we can cut up with lame opinionated, and words in our mouth responses like the ones that you and Sun have graced our pages with. Or are ya yeller? Not prepared to look stupid like you made the rest of us out to be?


HunterDave and I put forward very real concerns and ones backed by conservation strategies put in place for 15 years and in some cases, decades. But i guess thier not correct now. Not in the light of a quality fishery boom. How interesting how staunch opinions of the past have changed to open the doors of one small sectors ideals to change the future. I have seen every post on the fly anglers boards, I see what you guys want, i see what you guys complain about, I see what you guys see fishing should be like. I see what people on this board want and what fishing should be like. 2 very different perspectives, but who is right, really? I see you guys call this board the redneck board!!LOL Have you lowered yourselves to be here? I bet you think you have.


Calling out and shrugging off real concerns of other sectors of angling like your the only ones that are right, and everyone else is wrong, well, I guess we get what we have for fisheries today. More complaints than quality reports.


I do not agree with this quality fishery on these 2 lakes. A single specie pond, like beaver and bullshead closer to Calgary, yes, but not a self-sustaining system that is already quality. I guess a 25" plus bull isnt quality but a 20 inch cutt is. I guess all the foothills and high mountain streams that surround these lakes arent quality either as you see a need for these quality lakes deep within them. According to you fellas.


STEELHEAD

You are very bitter and I feel for you. I am researching the Fisheries budget information for the past 10 years. When I can piece it all together I will report. I want to know how many anglers we have a year for the past 10 years. I want to know what the fisheries budget is for the past 10 years. I also want to know what the fishing license revenue has been for the past 10 years. I also want to know how many officers we have per 100,000 hectares and compare to BC. I also want to know what the budget breakdown is in Alberta.

We know that BC stocks tons more lakes 900 to our 242 stocked and has about 4-5 times the licensing revenue. We also know we stock 20,000,000 fish a year in Alberta compared to only 8,000,000 in BC.

You keep throwing out this major assumption of I hate government...but...your points have not been backed up with any facts. Hopefully my contacts can provide what I am looking for. Should be numbers that are tracked yearly I would hope.

Your attempts to scare people into thinking put and take trout pond rules will somehow influence pike and walleye regulations is...how shall I put it nicely...bizarre. Funny how the plan is to only make a few of these lakes regionally to fill the demand. Stretching this future as you try is misplaced paranoia.

You say that nobody wants the new regulations we are selling but save a few and yet...wow...there are significant numbers buying it up when they put these regulations on a lake. You complain yet to me...complaining without context of knowing what you are complaining about (as in having experienced it) is very weak debating.

Your concerns center around maintaining high stocking rates, small fishing and plenty of space in your freezer while excluding all other users from having any say or any fishery that being fair works for everyone and not just your own ideals.

Your "fisheries strategies" are always out of context to this issue and yet you fail to acknowledge or recognize it. For instance...demanding the release of larger spawning sized trout makes no sense in a fishery that is put and take and any poor spawning success is just a novelty rather than a management strategy point.

And last but not least...funny how you tell us that people want to keep fish...excluding the fact that 95% of all put and take fisheries will remain 12 inch or smaller fisheries...ignoring everyone that wants something better...and forgetting that this new regulation allows for increase harvest by weight of fish while increasing and improving catch rates for everyone in the process. What you fail to do Sirs...is actually read what is being said. Keeping an open mind is what real debating is all about.

Cheers

Sun
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 01-13-2011, 09:44 AM
steelhead steelhead is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: south
Posts: 308
Default

Sun,



Quit putting words into peoples mouths. No more"so what your saying" and " your attempts" stuff. You have been doing it quite a bit, and thats poor debating. It not reading what people have said and your making your own decisions of what you think we said. One reason why fishpro has credibility. He doesnt assume. He recognizes the point, and adresses it accordingly. And he doesnt use lines that put a false emotion and words into the poster hes relpying to.

I'm not bitter. Not at all. If i was bitter, I would have been banned 6 pages ago. I just dont like this proposal for these peticular lakes.



Read this carefully SUN,

I'm definetly not here to scare people, I dont hate the government, I am a catch and release angler, my concerns do not center around high stocking rates, I am pro quality lakes (just not these 2) and what I do not do is not read whats being said! I have been saying this since the beginning, BUT, you have flipped it to make me out to be a bad person by , well...... as you put it....

"What you fail to do Sirs...is actually read what is being said. Keeping an open mind is what real debating is all about."


I think you are the one that best fits that description. And a few here have already agreed in past posts.


And then you say I dont know what these quality fisheries are like!! Ha ha,

I have fished Bullshead 12 times last year, Upper and lower k 5 times, many trout streams from north to south about 25 times, I even fished beaver and Muir twice each. I am a REGULAR USER OF QUALITY FISHERIES already.

Sun said what he thinks I know.....


"complaining without context of knowing what you are complaining about (as in having experienced it) is very weak debating"


Lets hear your experience with quality lakes. Where else and how many times have you fished the quality lakes and streams of this province.


For a person that is gunning for more quality lakes, how much have you used the ones we have already? How much have you experienced it? By reading your posts and reports for the last year (allthough quite nauseating) I already know the answer to my queries.


STEELHEAD



Don Theres not a person in the AFGA that does anything helpfull for our fisheries as a whole. They should Take the F out of thier title. Theres also not many people in the SRD I have any confidence in protecting our waters, such as the one that moved on that you mention.

I guess thats what we get for our dollar. Poor employees and pee poor enforcement.



I'm glad Sun quit as a Bio. He has a tough time reading and comprehending simple stuff, the tough stuff must be overwhealming at times.
__________________
official leader of the internet forum opposition party.

Last edited by steelhead; 01-13-2011 at 09:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 01-13-2011, 10:22 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

[QUOTE=steelhead;798098]Sun,



Quit putting words into peoples mouths. No more"so what your saying" and " your attempts" stuff. You have been doing it quite a bit, and thats poor debating. It not reading what people have said and your making your own decisions of what you think we said. One reason why fishpro has credibility. He doesnt assume. He recognizes the point, and adresses it accordingly. And he doesnt use lines that put a false emotion and words into the poster hes relpying to.

I'm not bitter. Not at all. If i was bitter, I would have been banned 6 pages ago. I just dont like this proposal for these peticular lakes.



Read this carefully SUN,

I'm definetly not here to scare people, I dont hate the government, (QUOTE]

Maybe it is just the impression you are giving people. You seem very caught up on the whole poaching is destroying the fishery...not over fishing. Also the comments over money being depleted from the system.

So far you have posted...18 times...complained about government funding in 10 and enforcement in 6 as principle reasons for not liking the proposed regulations. I have asked repeatedly for back up to your assumptions and seen nothing.

I have been fishing for a long time as apparently you yourself has. I see you at least find quality fisheries beneficial. I must of mixed you up with HunterDave for not fishing Bullshead before...sorry about that.

You comment about UKL and LKL being in the heartland of trout country and not needing any special regulations...but many people don't feel 12 inch trout should define the heartland of trout country. They are just asking for something a little bit more...in just a few easily accessible lakes scattered around each region of the province.

What is the problem with that concept...and allowing F&W to review that?
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 01-13-2011, 10:47 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Link to Petition.
http://www.petitiononline.com/dekkbeed/petition.html
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 01-13-2011, 11:17 AM
#249 #249 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4
Default

Steelhead,
Just a few comments/questions regarding one of your previous posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
Top 10 reasons why its a bad idea.


1. Protected specie in lake (bulls). Possible miss-identification of species causing harm to protected fish.
Contrary to your assertion, the proposed regulation changes — increasing the minimum size limit to 50 cm and reducing the bag limit for cutthroat/rainbow trout — would actually reduce the potential for anglers, who are “uneducated” in fish identification, to mistakenly harvest bull due to misidentification. This is because “uneducated” anglers, who abided by the new size limit and bag limit, would no longer have the potential to mistakenly harvest bull trout in the 30-50 cm size range. They would also have less potential to mistakenly harvest larger (>50 cm) bull trout, given that the bag limit for cutthroat/rainbow trout would be 1 fish (versus the current 3-fish bag limit).

If you were really concerned about protecting bull trout, then you would be in support for the proposed regulations. In fact, you would probably be in favour of total C&R regulations for all trout in both lakes, since this would prevent any harvest of bull trout due to misidentification.

Quote:
3. This lake has show to already be a quality fishery. Bulls can be caught with great regularity and well over the Quality size.
Yes, they are already quality fisheries for bulls. However, the intent of the proposed regulations — increasing the minimum size limit to 50 cm and reducing the bag limit for cutthroat/rainbow trout — is to also create quality fisheries for cutthroat/rainbow trout.

Quote:
5. Depths of species in summer months are generally too deep for shore anglers to have advertized higher catch rates. Thats the nature of those 2 species.
If this were the case, then why was the catch rate for cutthroat trout in the surface-set nets in UKL higher than for the mid-column or bottom sets in 2007, considering that the netting was done in the summer? Furthermore, the catch rate for bull trout in the surface-set nets was also surprisingly high for a species that some claim can only be caught in deep water.
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 01-13-2011, 11:57 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryF View Post
So this is all about keeping what you catch after all then. Not studies that haven't been done, economical impacts and everything else that you were stating as main reasons for your diagreement with the petition. Keeping the limit high isn't even on your top 10 list, but your statement makes it your top priority. With enough time, everyone slips up and the truth comes out. Thanks tho, you helped us put tons of information out there.
I've already listed my reasons why I would not support this proposal and after reviewing it I believe that my main concern was that absolutely no studies have been done on anything. When people start messing with the environment without any studies as to the possible repercussions bad things can happen. I think that a good example is of do-gooders dumping a bunch of perch into a trout pond which I'm sure Sundance can relate to.

Actually, keeping the limit high IS in my top ten list as point #7. Just because I didn't spell it out for you doesn't mean that it wasn't there. No slip up there.

You're welcomed. It appeared to me that you guys needed all of the help that you could get.
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 01-13-2011, 12:34 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
That is a shame. So you are totally opposed to all quality fisheries. But you have not even fished one by the sounds of it.
That depends on what you consider a quality fishery. If making it easier to catch and keep one 20" trout instead of being able to catch and keep three harder to catch 20" is considered a quality fishery then yeah, I guess that I am opposed to it.

No, I have never fished in any body of water in Alberta that is officially classed as a quality fishery. Nor have I jabbed a sharp pencil in my eye but even thou I haven't experienced it, I bet that it would hurt. I have though fished lakes that I personally consider quality fisheries although not officially called such.

If there were two bodies of water each 150kms from my home and both held +20" trout, which lake do you think that I'm going to drive to?

A. A quality fishery lake with easier to catch large trout with a minimum size limited to +20" and a possession limit of one; or

B. A lake with harder to catch larger trout with a minimum size limited to 12" and a possession limit of three.

I'll give you a hint........it's not "A"

In lake "B" I have the option of keeping three +20" if I want to. I also have the option of keeping three trout between 12" and 20" if I want something to cook up for myself for supper when I get home. I'm also the type that doesn't mind a challenge when it comes to catching fish and I realize that not everyone is like that.

It's all about options. This proposal will take the options away from anglers and limit them to one thing. If anyone that signs the petition doesn't understand that before signing it then too bad for them.
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 01-13-2011, 01:42 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
In lake "B" I have the option of keeping three +20" if I want to. I also have the option of keeping three trout between 12" and 20" if I want something to cook up for myself for supper when I get home. I'm also the type that doesn't mind a challenge when it comes to catching fish and I realize that not everyone is like that.

It's all about options. This proposal will take the options away from anglers and limit them to one thing. If anyone that signs the petition doesn't understand that before signing it then too bad for them.
Funny...these mystery lakes that really really great and skilled fishermen like yoursefl know about and can readily catch these 20 inch rainbows whenever they feel like really makes the rest of us anglers jealous. It is good to know they are so readily accessible and catchable. So now where are these mystery lakes?

Oh wait...

1) you won't tell us cause the over fishing will destroy this mystery fishery.

2) you will tell us another lake and hope no one calls you on it.

Fact is...you start a poll that asks are there lots of opportunity to catch lots of bigger cutthroat and rainbow trout in Alberta...you know the resounding answer would be no. It is a dream except where there is a quality fishery. Still...I bet after a quality fishery gets established...all other put and take lakes experience a sharp drop in usage. Why fish for minnows when you can catch something way more fun. Still you bad mouth what you know nothing about.

As for perch...somethings are clearly common sense.

Is it wrong to put perch in a put and take trout lake...yes...obviously...horribly bad.

Is it wrong to stock the lake with larger trout or let the trout grow bigger and have higher catch rates...terrible...just terrible...NOT...
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 01-13-2011, 01:56 PM
ADIDAFish's Avatar
ADIDAFish ADIDAFish is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 160
Default

Sun, HunterDave just wants it to be harder to catch fish there. To each his own but I think there are lots of other bodies of water where it is hard to catch fish. Why not try Ghost Lake for some lake trout?

I'm still surprised that 21 people voted no to this proposed change. I didn't think so many people enjoyed having a smaller chance of catching smaller fish.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 01-13-2011, 05:07 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
Funny...these mystery lakes that really really great and skilled fishermen like yoursefl know about and can readily catch these 20 inch rainbows whenever they feel like really makes the rest of us anglers jealous. It is good to know they are so readily accessible and catchable. So now where are these mystery lakes?

Oh wait...

1) you won't tell us cause the over fishing will destroy this mystery fishery.

2) you will tell us another lake and hope no one calls you on it.

Fact is...you start a poll that asks are there lots of opportunity to catch lots of bigger cutthroat and rainbow trout in Alberta...you know the resounding answer would be no. It is a dream except where there is a quality fishery. Still...I bet after a quality fishery gets established...all other put and take lakes experience a sharp drop in usage. Why fish for minnows when you can catch something way more fun. Still you bad mouth what you know nothing about.

As for perch...somethings are clearly common sense.

Is it wrong to put perch in a put and take trout lake...yes...obviously...horribly bad.

Is it wrong to stock the lake with larger trout or let the trout grow bigger and have higher catch rates...terrible...just terrible...NOT...
Nothing of substance. Perhaps you should take Fishpro's example and apply it to your posts.
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 01-13-2011, 05:22 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ADIDAFish View Post
Sun, HunterDave just wants it to be harder to catch fish there. To each his own but I think there are lots of other bodies of water where it is hard to catch fish. Why not try Ghost Lake for some lake trout?

I'm still surprised that 21 people voted no to this proposed change. I didn't think so many people enjoyed having a smaller chance of catching smaller fish.
How is not adopting this proposal making it harder to catch fish? Adopting makes it easier to catch larger fish but not adopting it doesn't make it any harder to catch fish. That makes no sense to me.

I'm actually surprised that there aren't allot more people voting no. You'd think that people wouldn't welcome more restrictions. Maybe the other 20 no votes come from people that are already catching 20" trout out of Kan Lakes?

I honestly don't know what "having a smaller chance of catching smaller fish." means?
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 01-13-2011, 06:18 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
I'm actually surprised that there aren't allot more people voting no. You'd think that people wouldn't welcome more restrictions. Maybe the other 20 no votes come from people that are already catching 20" trout out of Kan Lakes?
You are surprised the majority want to catch bigger fish? 70-80% of those who care feel this is a positive step to have a readily accessible, high quality fishery, with higher catch rates and larger fish. The split on your poll is similar to the F&W survey.

You are talking about the same basic regulations but instead of 12 inch limit it is increased to 20 inch. Because the fish are significantly larger...1 fish is worth at worst the same...and more than likely more than the previous 3 fish combine.

The lake currently has both size restrictions and length restrictions. No "additional" regulations are being applied.


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

277 signatures
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 01-13-2011, 06:35 PM
fishpro fishpro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NW Calgary
Posts: 1,047
Default

I can tell from this thread that there are many people who are either strongly for or against this petition. I do realize that there are many issues on both sides of the argument and there has been a lot of back and forth arguing where people on both sides don't fully see what the other is saying. There are many concerns regarding this topic throughout this thread, but if anyone would like to compile their concerns again I would be happy to discuss them. Please feel free to make another post mentioning your main concerns and I will try my best to address them.
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 01-13-2011, 07:11 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
My Top Ten Reasons Why I do NOT support This Proposal:

1. I refuse to endorse anything that isn't well thought out and studied.
2. There has been nothing substantial presented by anyone endorsing this proposal that indicates to me that it is a good idea.
3. There has been no study of the lake to determine what the ramifications would be of having more large fish in it.
4. There has been no study done on the economic impact such a proposal would have on the tourist industry and local businesses in the Kan Lakes area.
5. No one has been consulted in the Kan Lakes area to get a clear indication of what the users of the area would want.
6. SRD has not been contacted to confirm whether or not there's a legitimate reason for the current regs to be in place as they are.
7. Possession rates will be slashed 66%.
8. Mortality rates of easy to catch smaller fish could potentially increase due to fish trauma associated with catch and release requirements.
9. It is a poor lesson in conservation to teach young anglers to keep large spawning sized fish and not smaller eating sized ones.
10.IMHO this point isn't required so I'll just throw it away...........plus I'm lazy.
Here ya go Fishpro.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 01-13-2011, 10:08 PM
fishpro fishpro is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NW Calgary
Posts: 1,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
My Top Ten Reasons Why I do NOT support This Proposal:

1. I refuse to endorse anything that isn't well thought out and studied.
2. There has been nothing substantial presented by anyone endorsing this proposal that indicates to me that it is a good idea.
3. There has been no study of the lake to determine what the ramifications would be of having more large fish in it.
4. There has been no study done on the economic impact such a proposal would have on the tourist industry and local businesses in the Kan Lakes area.
5. No one has been consulted in the Kan Lakes area to get a clear indication of what the users of the area would want.
6. SRD has not been contacted to confirm whether or not there's a legitimate reason for the current regs to be in place as they are.
7. Possession rates will be slashed 66%.
8. Mortality rates of easy to catch smaller fish could potentially increase due to fish trauma associated with catch and release requirements.
9. It is a poor lesson in conservation to teach young anglers to keep large spawning sized fish and not smaller eating sized ones.
10.IMHO this point isn't required so I'll just throw it away...........plus I'm lazy.
Before I get to addressing the specific points, here is a list referring to the original post about the petition. I am not sure if it will help at all, or if you may have already seen it. http://outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=77783

1. I completely respect your view on that. I may be incorrect, but I believe that a petition showing angler interest in this would lead to further studies being done. If a few people believe that this could improve the fishery and present it at a round table meeting, then perhaps SRD would look further into the lakes and their potential. If studies were to show that these lakes were unsuitable, then they would probably research other possible lakes due to angler support for such fisheries. I believe that by signing such this petition you are supporting more than just a regulation change on 2 lakes, but also showing the government that there is a significant number of fishermen who are passionate about having fisheries like proposed. It could also lead to more money given to other future studies as fishermen see that the government will actually listen to them.

2. I don't know exactly what you are looking for, but the reason I am in support of this is simply to create another fishery with large numbers of quality fish.

3. and 4. are the same as number 1. Additionally, I do realize that Bullshead isn't an identical situation, but the past management at Bullshead has shown that SRD does take these lakes seriously. If there were too many larger fish (ie. too much biomass at the level of the food chain that trout occupy), it would be apparent within a few years as growth rates noticably change. If this was to occur, as it did at Bullshead, fishermen would get involved and discuss stocking rates with SRD and have them reduced if necessary. I expect that if this was to go through then there would be a group of anglers that become very involved in this fishery.

5. It would likely be a good idea to consult people in the area. Unfortunately that has not happened yet, and now that it is winter there will be relatively few people in the area. For the time being I believe it is beneficial to survey here for a general opinion, as well as reach some users of Kananaskis Lakes that frequent the forum, then next summer people could be consulted in Kananaskis.

6. As noted in the link I posted above, the first round of this petition was discussed as the SRD Round Table meeting recently. If there was a reason for the regs to be in place exactly how they are I believe that would be something that would be mentioned.

7. I completely understand your point. I have been to the lakes but haven't fished them much, but from my understanding most of the fish are under or just marginally over the 30cm limit. I have seen numberous lakes of fish of various species where this type of situation exists, especially where there is significant fishing pressure. Assuming this trend continues with an increased size limit to 50cm, we could likely expect numerous fish up to 50cm with a few over. The fish now being stocked are cutthroats, which usually remain gullible and easy to catch even as they grow large, so I don't feel we need to worry about a fish just over the 50cm limit being that much harder to catch than a fish just over a 30cm limit. Now, since a fish's weight will grow approximately proportional to the cube of the change in the fish's length, a 55cm trout will have more meat on it than 3 35cm trout. In this case, while the posession limits will be reduced by 66% in terms of numbers of fish, the amount of fish by weight will stay the same or even increase under the proposed regulations.

8. This is definitely possible. I know I made a post earlier in this thread mentioning that there will be people wanting to help the lakes. They would likely do things such as: politely helping people out with fish handling techniques, lobbying SRD and/or Kananaskis Country to install signs on fish handling, or even raising money themselves for these signs. Recent history has shown that passionate fishermen in Alberta can collectively raise thousands of dollars towards a cause they believe in. While this will not completely eliminate mortality, I believe it will keep it to a very reasonable minimum.

9. I see where you are coming from, but I don't see that as being a huge deal here simply because they are stocked lakes and that would not be the purpose of these lakes. Yes, it is an important lessons to teach young anglers, but I believe that since there are so many places to teach such a thing that we don't need to worry about having one fewer.


One question I do have for you though. Are you opposed to the idea of such regulations being implemented anywhere with the intention of creating higher quality fisheries (by some people's standards), or are you more of the opinion that this case simply needs more research before being valid to seriously consider?
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 01-13-2011, 10:17 PM
ADIDAFish's Avatar
ADIDAFish ADIDAFish is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 160
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
How is not adopting this proposal making it harder to catch fish? Adopting makes it easier to catch larger fish but not adopting it doesn't make it any harder to catch fish. That makes no sense to me.

I'm actually surprised that there aren't allot more people voting no. You'd think that people wouldn't welcome more restrictions. Maybe the other 20 no votes come from people that are already catching 20" trout out of Kan Lakes?

I honestly don't know what "having a smaller chance of catching smaller fish." means?
Not adopting this proposal does mean the catch rates will be lower than if the proposal was accepted.

If the proposal was accepted, the small fish won't be getting fished out. There will be tons of little fish that will have to be released until they get bigger, meaning it would be much easier to catch fish.

"a smaller chance of catching smaller fish" doesn't make too much sense I'll admit, what I meant was if the proposal doesn't go through then the chance of catching fish will be lower and the size of the fish will be smaller. Would you agree with that?
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 01-13-2011, 10:35 PM
hunter49
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Wow, this thread has gone over the top.

Sundancefisher why dont you try and do something useful for the lakes such as getting rid of the powerplant which in turn would stabilize the water level in the lakes. Not much of a "trophy" fishery if the food isnt there.
Reply With Quote
  #201  
Old 01-14-2011, 01:57 AM
GaryF GaryF is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 178
Default

I don't believe that there is anything left that could be said to sway HD or Steelhead. HD is against lowering catch rates, no matter what you put in front of him, he will never say yes to lowering the limit of harvest. Steelhead has posted before of his dislike of picking these 2 lakes as he likes them the way they are. He does not want them to become like the Bow because that will increase traffic and visitors and will take away what solitude he gets now from the lakes.

I understand their points fully, don't agree with them, but do understand them. With so few managed fisheries in the province, having a group of anglers petition for them is the first step, I've said this all along, and its the only point I have on my top 10 list. Are these the right lakes? Don't know until the studies get done, but they won't get started unless interest is shown. If the studies come back saying these lakes are bad, but this lake is good, then I will back that lake 100%. The stocking program is for everyone in alberta, and some of us would like to turn some of them into more than just a rotating door. Asking for 1% of all those bodies of water to me is not being unreasonable. That would be 29 lakes spread throughout the province out of the 293 that are stocked. To me that is completely doable and would not impact the general public the way some ppl make it out to be.
__________________
Enjoying the peace and serenity of this wonderful sport!!
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 01-14-2011, 03:52 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishpro View Post
One question I do have for you though. Are you opposed to the idea of such regulations being implemented anywhere with the intention of creating higher quality fisheries (by some people's standards), or are you more of the opinion that this case simply needs more research before being valid to seriously consider?
The short answer is no, as long as you fellas keep it south of Red Deer and don't try to bring it up north.

Generally speeking, I'm not against quality fisheries as described on this thread as being a +20" trout with a reduction down to a possession limit of only one trout under some conditions:

The first being that the proposed body of water should be a new initiative (or an old one that's not working) and not one that is already producing fish that are so called quality sized +20" fish;

The second condition would be that the body of water selected would need to be in an appropriate geographical location; and,

The third would be that it would have to be in the common interests of all users of the body of water and not just a small number of vocal people.

To answer the second part of your question, yes, I could never consider endorsing anything without knowing what I was endorsing. IMO this proposal has not been researched at all and nothing has been posted on this thread to indicated otherwise.

How can anyone vote for this proposal, let alone endorse it, without knowing any facts? Right now people are signing a petition in support of the proposed regulation changes without even knowing if this lake can grow the trout to +20 in four years. It doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Regardless, I don't know allot about the fisheries in the Calgary region so I have to assume from what I've read that we have significantly more fishing opportunities in the area north of Edmonton. There are non-quality fishery lakes that have +20" trout in them and we have the option of keeping five 12" ones or five +20" ones. I don't think that anyone up here would want to change that but to each their own.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 01-14-2011, 04:21 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ADIDAFish View Post
Not adopting this proposal does mean the catch rates will be lower than if the proposal was accepted.

If the proposal was accepted, the small fish won't be getting fished out. There will be tons of little fish that will have to be released until they get bigger, meaning it would be much easier to catch fish.

"a smaller chance of catching smaller fish" doesn't make too much sense I'll admit, what I meant was if the proposal doesn't go through then the chance of catching fish will be lower and the size of the fish will be smaller. Would you agree with that?
FINALLY! "It would be easier to catch fish" EXACTLY! When did easy to catch fish come into vogue? Maybe we should put enough restrictions on the Kan Lakes that eventually you could walk down to the lake and just dip a net in there and catch a dozen or so.

BTW the lake doesn't get fished out. If you believe that then I'm your Irish Uncle Jimmy.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 01-14-2011, 05:01 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryF View Post
I don't believe that there is anything left that could be said to sway HD or Steelhead. HD is against lowering catch rates, no matter what you put in front of him, he will never say yes to lowering the limit of harvest. Steelhead has posted before of his dislike of picking these 2 lakes as he likes them the way they are. He does not want them to become like the Bow because that will increase traffic and visitors and will take away what solitude he gets now from the lakes.

I understand their points fully, don't agree with them, but do understand them. With so few managed fisheries in the province, having a group of anglers petition for them is the first step, I've said this all along, and its the only point I have on my top 10 list. Are these the right lakes? Don't know until the studies get done, but they won't get started unless interest is shown. If the studies come back saying these lakes are bad, but this lake is good, then I will back that lake 100%. The stocking program is for everyone in alberta, and some of us would like to turn some of them into more than just a rotating door. Asking for 1% of all those bodies of water to me is not being unreasonable. That would be 29 lakes spread throughout the province out of the 293 that are stocked. To me that is completely doable and would not impact the general public the way some ppl make it out to be.
Well put. There's more than just the issue of reducing possession limits though (you said catch rates but I knew what you meant). ALLOT more is at stake with changing the fishing regs for Kan Lakes. I've mentioned them too many times to mention them again.

If the majority want easier to catch fish down that way then I say go for it.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 01-14-2011, 08:43 AM
Freedom55 Freedom55 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perdue SK
Posts: 1,570
Default Sundance. Do you ever read the stuff you post?

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...
'... 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."

Mr Sundance Lake resident:
Out of a network of some 20,000 participants in this forum, and you've managed to include them all by posting in the General Discussion section, you have only stirred the imagination in 50 or so. Added to that is the other 60ish members (perhaps a few from another fishing forum you recently joined for this express reason) who participated in this poll. You have browbeaten everyone who has presented a better argument than you and your adopted cause, a proposal by some long gone poster; a cause that you hadn't thought of until these two guys fired your emotions. Previous to this you had perch on the brain and salmon from the north coast in your heart.
You have accused members of being anarchists, or bitter, or not worthy to debate with. Your condescending remarks have driven some of these people to frenzy, and caused others to vow their undying love.
I'm betting that ROTFLMOA is an acronym for a slur or other offensive remark.
You talk out of both sides of your mouth.
You provoked your neighbor into doing a reprehensible deed, then you thought you could weasle out of it with your "2 names" post. jeeez
From your first word on the subject, before even you had given it much thought, you had people who had given it no thought at all signing a petition that in fact, (don't YOU just love that word?) should not have been started until it had been well and truly discussed by the stakeholders.
You got your 277 signatures, if they can be called that, so give it a rest. Because I have noticed that I am somewhat of a threadkiller, I'm hoping that my mojo will work on this topic. And good riddance. We're flogging a dead horse, in my opinion.
Sorry to derail your thread, HunterDave. It is you that I admire and respect for your tenacity with this guy, not him. Your words, and those of several others, including steelhead, definitely convinced a lot of people to avoid this whole nasty business.
Kevin: if you didn't like the elastic band remark, try this one.
"Put an egg in your shoe and beat it!"
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 01-14-2011, 08:47 AM
Bigtoad's Avatar
Bigtoad Bigtoad is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 390
Default

Well, I'll start with HunterDave, just to comment on his quote:
"The third would be that it would have to be in the common interests of all users of the body of water and not just a small number of vocal people."

By looking at the results of this poll as well as the results of the government poll on quality fisheries, I think you'll find that it's actually you that are in the "small number of vocal people." I believe the majority of people do want more quality fisheries. Even the lakes designated as "quality" while still allowing large fish to be kept (like Beaver) fall short of the quality distinction IMHO.

For those people against changing regs, not only in Kananaskis but also in designating many more lakes as quality fisheries, have a look at this video of the Manitoba Parkland. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, at least watch the part at 16:40 where the biologist talks about what their plan was for creating such a great fishery.

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/ca...451838pz8TAfcK

If anyone can watch this and not be totally convinced that quality fisheries are the way to go (while still keeping put-and-take lakes for Chubbdarter and others who like their grocery bills to be subsidized not by food-stamps but by stocking rates) then you had better check yourself into emergency and get the tumor that is pushing up against your cerebellum removed before you lose bladder control as well as your common sense.

Cheers.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 01-14-2011, 09:33 AM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtoad View Post
Well, I'll start with HunterDave, just to comment on his quote:
"The third would be that it would have to be in the common interests of all users of the body of water and not just a small number of vocal people."

By looking at the results of this poll as well as the results of the government poll on quality fisheries, I think you'll find that it's actually you that are in the "small number of vocal people." I believe the majority of people do want more quality fisheries. Even the lakes designated as "quality" while still allowing large fish to be kept (like Beaver) fall short of the quality distinction IMHO.

For those people against changing regs, not only in Kananaskis but also in designating many more lakes as quality fisheries, have a look at this video of the Manitoba Parkland. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, at least watch the part at 16:40 where the biologist talks about what their plan was for creating such a great fishery.

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/ca...451838pz8TAfcK

If anyone can watch this and not be totally convinced that quality fisheries are the way to go (while still keeping put-and-take lakes for Chubbdarter and others who like their grocery bills to be subsidized not by food-stamps but by stocking rates) then you had better check yourself into emergency and get the tumor that is pushing up against your cerebellum removed before you lose bladder control as well as your common sense.

Cheers.

hahahahahahaa.....just so you know im sponsored by KFC so food stamps arent needed. Never once did i oppose this for my benefit, but hey you make up all the fairy tales you want.

im fighting cancer now....so thanks for the medical advice.

Last edited by chubbdarter; 01-14-2011 at 09:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 01-14-2011, 10:28 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
im fighting cancer now....so thanks for the medical advice.
Gezz guy. I am truly sorry to hear it. I hope you beat the crap out of the disease with the same strength and conviction you often post with. I have lost too many friends and family.

My thoughts and prayers are with you.

Sun

P.S. If you want to bury the hatchet and get away without going far...PM me and I will get you out for some perch if you are up to it...no political talk...just sittin' and fishin'
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 01-14-2011, 10:32 AM
Bigtoad's Avatar
Bigtoad Bigtoad is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
hahahahahahaa.....just so you know im sponsored by KFC so food stamps arent needed. Never once did i oppose this for my benefit, but hey you make up all the fairy tales you want.

im fighting cancer now....so thanks for the medical advice.
Also, VERY sorry to hear that Chubbdarter. You're too fun not to drag back into the discussion.

Did you watch the video link? If you are thinking about the benefit to others, how could something like what FLIPPR is doing in Manitoba not be beneficial to many, many, many people, young and old alike?

Cheers.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 01-14-2011, 03:11 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtoad View Post
Well, I'll start with HunterDave, just to comment on his quote:
"The third would be that it would have to be in the common interests of all users of the body of water and not just a small number of vocal people."

By looking at the results of this poll as well as the results of the government poll on quality fisheries, I think you'll find that it's actually you that are in the "small number of vocal people." I believe the majority of people do want more quality fisheries. Even the lakes designated as "quality" while still allowing large fish to be kept (like Beaver) fall short of the quality distinction IMHO.
My intent with starting this poll was to see what people really thought about the proposal. I suspect that perhaps some people may have viewed this as a challenge to see who could get the most votes for the position that they supported. If that is the case then the results of the poll are skewed.

Similarly, the results from the SRD survey were gathered from an unadvertised poll that was posted on their website for a period of one month. My opinion is that it should have been more widely advertised and distributed in order to get a better understanding of what the general consensus was. I wasn't aware of the survey and didn't fill it out, did you? One method of gathering information would have been to conduct a survey similar to the one that hunters received this Fall regarding the inclusion of crossbows into archery only season.

As far as the petition, it is one sided and only gathers the number of people that support the proposal but doesn't indicate how many people refused to sign it. Despite all of the campaigning to get people to sign it, a petition signed by only -300 people on an outdoorsman with as many members as we have (not including people from other forums) actually indicates to me that there is not allot of support for this initiative and it is indeed a vocal minority that support it. Do you understand my logic?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:35 PM.


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