Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fishing Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 10-19-2017, 10:35 PM
bobalong bobalong is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,130
Default

This ideas was presented to F/W at a Fisheries Rountable in about 2006. Looked like a great idea........rejected because they didn't have the staff to monitor them. F/W were presented with many good ideas at these meetings, but at the time did not accept any of them. I believe the cost at that time was about 5000.00 for each "micropond". I can't remember the increase in survival rates but it was substantial.
I don't know, but think this could also work well for pike and perch.

There were quite a few members from clubs there that said they could raise that amount fairly easily, so there would be no setup cost to the government, with the exception of some monitoring. F/W said they did not have the budget for monitoring these.........

http://lloydfishandgame.org/micro-pond/

Last edited by bobalong; 10-19-2017 at 10:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 10-20-2017, 12:01 AM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
Would more funding help, would it be a big part of the solution?
Imo more funding would not necessarily help and any extra funding could be used in much more productive areas such as increasing enforcement, repairing waterways(like the rivers they want to close now) etc.

I think the netting every 5 years as they currently do(for the most part) is reasonable. I just wish they did a better job of doing every lake within that time period. Extra netting for lakes like Pigeon etc to try and stay on top of the tag system has led to some lakes not being netted in years. Some of which like say Calling could provide valuable information about other walleye management strategies(hence maybe why it hasn't been netted recently?).

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
DO you even know why you want a slot limit?

Slot limits were originally used to allow the removal of eating size fish. Which are usually far from spawning age. Is that what you want? If so that would be a mistake.

Slot limits above the spawning age is just the lower limit where it currently is with a maximum size to protect a larger size. This would be an appropriate selection for quality fisheries. However, the comment by Rav about stunting is unlikely to be the case because of keeping of fish and more likely the result of few fish making it much over that limit before being removed. If you are looking to keep fish than the slot will restrict your ability to keep, even more than current regs.

More testing is needed to make better judgement/decisions. How do you determine limits? Or slot sizes? Slots to be safe without much monitoring If you dont get it(monitoring) than what we have is best and should not stray to far.

Knowing what you want and why is important.
A slot size does not have to be for prime eating size fish. A slot is simply a range and it can be set in a number of ways.

Minimum size limits work, AEP told us this and there are reports that say this as well. They and C&R were successfully used to recover our walleye fisheries here in AB. The problem with them is that they lead to smaller fish because all the bigger fish are taken out leading to only small fish remaining which causes genetic stunting over time. They call this the hockey stick effect because a lake will create a self imposed size limit and the fish will appear to flatline at that size regardless of age(due to being naturally smaller fish just like short humans).

If you want some light reading on the subject one of our provinces bios did a report on different options and there is a lot of good information on what does and doesn't work and the potential and actual effects of changing limits on lakes in Alberta.

https://era.library.ualberta.ca/file...ing%202010.pdf

This was a well executed program and it does clearly show that limits of 43 cm max, 43 cm min and slot limits of 40-50 cm are not effective but to me that doesn't mean anything as I would never expect those limits to be effective on areas with significant fishing pressure because they all mean too many young fish are removed.

One other major thing that was also not taken into account in this study was the effects due to the micro management of a few waterbodies while many other lakes had restrictive regulations. The effects of this are clear in his studies when he comments on how the pressure decreased on Smoke and skyrocketed on Iosegun with the changes implemented and then how the pressure returned to Smoke after Iosegun was fished to unsatisfactory levels.

What I would like to see is the effects of a province wide slot size that starts at at least 45 cm if not 50 cm and only 1 fish for most lakes(there are a few that can sustain higher though). There are only 2 lakes in AB that I know of with such regulations and both have healthy balanced walleye populations. I believe with the proper upper slot limit size that some fish would survive through the slot and then be able to reproduce for many more years allowing their spawn to compete against the hockey stick population. No matter what changes are made(slot, minimum sizes etc) I believe they have to be made province wide as it balances the fishing pressure.

The argument for the tag system is that it allows the ability to control the fish size/populations but as is clearly laid out in the report it is costly and requires regular and accurate population and fishing pressure estimates in order to be truly effective. It is a method that can work but I believe it is a waste of money and unnecessary at this time(and I will continue to believe so until I see evidence that a proper slot would not be effective).

Lakes close to the city like Pigeon can stay tags, in a way it would actually help the other lakes because many people like having close options even if they are just C&R but I think even they can get by on a slot limit(or even minimum size limit) and the hockey stick phenomenon isn't that serious as it can also be combated by occasional stocking from healthy genetic sources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
If you are looking to keep fish than the slot will restrict your ability to keep, even more than current regs.
This just blows my mind. How could a slot limit possibly further restrict our ability to keep walleye? Our ability to keep walleye from all but a small handful of lakes is negligible at the moment to the point where I can count the number of walleye I have kept this year on one hand even though I have caught over 200 from a number of lakes. Our current regulations are extremely restrictive unless you live by or are willing to travel to lakes like Slave etc that still have open limits. Something I and many others aren't that willing to do for only 1 fish limits(which is another reason I believe a 1 fish slot limit would be effective).
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 10-20-2017, 07:52 AM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobalong View Post
This ideas was presented to F/W at a Fisheries Rountable in about 2006. Looked like a great idea........rejected because they didn't have the staff to monitor them. F/W were presented with many good ideas at these meetings, but at the time did not accept any of them. I believe the cost at that time was about 5000.00 for each "micropond". I can't remember the increase in survival rates but it was substantial.
I don't know, but think this could also work well for pike and perch.

There were quite a few members from clubs there that said they could raise that amount fairly easily, so there would be no setup cost to the government, with the exception of some monitoring. F/W said they did not have the budget for monitoring these.........

http://lloydfishandgame.org/micro-pond/
That is sad. Budget for monitoring?? I wonder what they want to monitor. Talk about a huge cop out.

I was curious about "monitoring" in Wisconsin since they seem to have no troubles with fish farming. I found this:

http://www.fondriest.com/news/gis-ma...heir-ponds.htm

What is interesting is overall how much the ideas are embraced...and innovated. Not to mention the fish farm numbers reported in his article. I know they are used for other purposes as in the "commercial" - from farm to table - but it is really run more like an overall business than a government program.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 10-20-2017, 06:23 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
First of all the old anglers per waterbody argument is severely overplayed on this forum and is next to meaningless. If you want to actually compare provinces in this manner you need to look at the primary people holding areas(say 3 hrs surrounding every city), data for which I do not believe is available. If you did this the angler/waterbody or area of water would skyrocket in most other provinces because most of their waterbodies are inaccessible or rarely accessed by their primary fishing populations.

Alberta on the other hand only has a handful of very remote waterbodies that don't see regular pressure and outside of the few major lakes close to Edmonton/Red Deer/Calgary our fishing pressure is spread out pretty effectively.

If you have ever fished any of these other provinces you will know that there are many lakes/rivers in some of these other provinces that see just as much if not more pressure then our AB waterbodies see. I know I have seen it in both SK and BC as well as many times in fishing shows etc for ON.


Back to the walleye topic.


Your comments regarding Chin are a great example of why the tag system is not the solution here in AB. The only way to properly micromanage a lake by controlling tag numbers requires in depth population estimates every couple years at least. Netting is the main way they get this information but that is not a good means especially on a year to year or every other year basis as their is significant mortality associated with that netting.

Chin is an example why test netting should be done and more frequently. Nothing to do with tag system. If it was tested every 2 years they could have adjusted 3 fish to 1 and still had ample time to see the effects that move had. Test netting mortality is acceptable in most Provinces and States. Other means are available as well I believe. But they are critical to making decisions.

The only way the tag system is effective with lack of perfect micromanaging is if it is used like it currently is on Pigeon and Ste. Anne where the lakes are overpopulated and the tag numbers are set low to ensure there are not too many fish removed. That has other negative effects though because it screws up the lakes ecosystem and decimates other fish species populations as is completely obvious on those lakes both of which used to have populations of pike, perch and whitefish all of which are now lacking and not really recovering even though the limits have been closed for some time now(for pike anyways)...


Better to remove to few than to many. Patience may be required. Cant really blame tags when population was already to great


I am vehemently against a province wide tag system because I know it won't be managed properly and all it is going to do is ruin these waterbodies. If they want to use it on the lakes close to city that do see signifcant pressure like Pigeon etc do then I am ok with that but implementing these on every lake across the province and them now wanting to do so for pike as well is utterly ridiculous and is going to do far more harm then good.

I also am against province wide tag system. But not for your reasons. Last resort to me. I also think close to large cities tags are a good option. For pike too.

Alternatives to the tag system are minimum size limits which have proven effective(and which for the record AEP also says are effective minus the stunted average size) and slot limits which have all the advantages of a minimum size limit plus give a population of larger fish as well.

Agree, but with the comment that if to many fish are removed the upper limit is unneeded or useless

AEP really likes to focus on walleye, grayling and bull trout but they keep doing so at the expense of other species and it is time that they step back and realize what they are doing and start making some better decisions regarding the big picture of fish populations and angling in Alberta.
Its true that trout and walleye get the most attention and more focus has been made on Bulls and grayling which is good and largely the first 2 because they are way more popular.

Bottom line more money would help to reduce test netting intervals and some could be used or directed to enforcement(not like that hasnt been suggested before). More money for test netting would allow for better decisions on limits and opening/closing fisheries or adjusting to rising/falling populations. Test nets do not just monitor one species either.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.

Last edited by huntsfurfish; 10-20-2017 at 06:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 10-20-2017, 06:39 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
Imo more funding would not necessarily help and any extra funding could be used in much more productive areas such as increasing enforcement, repairing waterways(like the rivers they want to close now) etc.

Thats just a cop out same with Brandonkop. More money for better testing intervals might have actually eliminated the need to shut down many of those waters!Still talking walleye, enforcement would be another good use for more and larger budget.

I think the netting every 5 years as they currently do(for the most part) is reasonable. I just wish they did a better job of doing every lake within that time period. Extra netting for lakes like Pigeon etc to try and stay on top of the tag system has led to some lakes not being netted in years. Some of which like say Calling could provide valuable information about other walleye management strategies(hence maybe why it hasn't been netted recently?).

Highly disagree, see answer above. Your answer(second line on)would benefit/solve your issue from more money. lol

A slot size does not have to be for prime eating size fish. A slot is simply a range and it can be set in a number of ways.

Minimum size limits work, AEP told us this and there are reports that say this as well. They and C&R were successfully used to recover our walleye fisheries here in AB. The problem with them is that they lead to smaller fish because all the bigger fish are taken out leading to only small fish remaining which causes genetic stunting over time. They call this the hockey stick effect because a lake will create a self imposed size limit and the fish will appear to flatline at that size regardless of age(due to being naturally smaller fish just like short humans).

Am aware of how slots work. Could possibly help to create quality walleye fisheries in some instances.


If you want some light reading on the subject one of our provinces bios did a report on different options and there is a lot of good information on what does and doesn't work and the potential and actual effects of changing limits on lakes in Alberta.

https://era.library.ualberta.ca/file...ing%202010.pdf

This was a well executed program and it does clearly show that limits of 43 cm max, 43 cm min and slot limits of 40-50 cm are not effective but to me that doesn't mean anything as I would never expect those limits to be effective on areas with significant fishing pressure because they all mean too many young fish are removed.

Agree

One other major thing that was also not taken into account in this study was the effects due to the micro management of a few waterbodies while many other lakes had restrictive regulations. The effects of this are clear in his studies when he comments on how the pressure decreased on Smoke and skyrocketed on Iosegun with the changes implemented and then how the pressure returned to Smoke after Iosegun was fished to unsatisfactory levels.

What I would like to see is the effects of a province wide slot size that starts at at least 45 cm if not 50 cm and only 1 fish for most lakes(there are a few that can sustain higher though). There are only 2 lakes in AB that I know of with such regulations and both have healthy balanced walleye populations. I believe with the proper upper slot limit size that some fish would survive through the slot and then be able to reproduce for many more years allowing their spawn to compete against the hockey stick population. No matter what changes are made(slot, minimum sizes etc) I believe they have to be made province wide as it balances the fishing pressure.

The argument for the tag system is that it allows the ability to control the fish size/populations but as is clearly laid out in the report it is costly and requires regular and accurate population and fishing pressure estimates in order to be truly effective. It is a method that can work but I believe it is a waste of money and unnecessary at this time(and I will continue to believe so until I see evidence that a proper slot would not be effective).

Lakes close to the city like Pigeon can stay tags, in a way it would actually help the other lakes because many people like having close options even if they are just C&R but I think even they can get by on a slot limit(or even minimum size limit) and the hockey stick phenomenon isn't that serious as it can also be combated by occasional stocking from healthy genetic sources.



This just blows my mind. How could a slot limit possibly further restrict our ability to keep walleye? Our ability to keep walleye from all but a small handful of lakes is negligible at the moment to the point where I can count the number of walleye I have kept this year on one hand even though I have caught over 200 from a number of lakes. Our current regulations are extremely restrictive unless you live by or are willing to travel to lakes like Slave etc that still have open limits. Something I and many others aren't that willing to do for only 1 fish limits(which is another reason I believe a 1 fish slot limit would be effective).
If a limit is set to say 45-60 for example. You cant keep any over 60. Pretty simple. Not that it matters to me cuz I keep very few fish.

Brandon, Rav, Kurt more test netting is really really uge in keeping things good. Sad you cant see that. More money would be needed for that. Sad you cant see how that fits too.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.

Last edited by huntsfurfish; 10-20-2017 at 06:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 10-20-2017, 06:56 PM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

It is not a cop out. There are millions upon millions that could be spent in better ways then extra netting/population estimates for every lake.

We are talking taxpayers money, not only could it go to F&W enforcement but to healthcare, road maintenance and so many other things.

Even as a hardcore fisherman population estimates/netting are quite low on my need to have more funding for and I don't feel the need to increase taxes in order to pay for more netting...

I would rather have simpler regs that can still properly manage walleye populations without having the need for extra close and expensive monitoring.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 10-20-2017, 06:57 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Doesnt need to be every lake.

Yes money should go to healthcare and education. And how do you justify it.

But that was an argument I made before as well. Fisheries have been on the cheap for decades. And I would rather have testing than more enforcement.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 10-20-2017, 06:58 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
If a limit is set to say 45-60 for example. You cant keep any over 60. Pretty simple. Not that it matters to me cuz I keep very few fish.

Brandon, Rav, Kurt more test netting is really really uge in keeping things good. Sad you cant see that. More money would be needed for that. Sad you cant see how that fits too.
What's sad is that you think money is going to magically show up and save our fisheries.

Don't you get it??? Extra money isn't going to be a part of the equation so we need to figure out a way with the budget they're working with!!!

Wholly smokes man.....
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 10-20-2017, 06:59 PM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
Doesnt need to be every lake.
So you are on the same page as me that tags should only be used on the handful of lakes within close vicinity to the major city centers then?
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 10-20-2017, 07:01 PM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

Test netting kills percentage points of walleye population every time they do it. If the bio has an issue with C&R mortality he must have an issue with regular netting as well...
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 10-20-2017, 07:05 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Im really quite content with the way it is. You guys want change.
The changes you want require good monitoring. For crying out loud read your own posts.
Kurt you wanted suggestions. Lobby for more funding. You 3 can just keep whining.

Sheesh.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 10-20-2017, 07:08 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
Test netting kills percentage points of walleye population every time they do it. If the bio has an issue with C&R mortality he must have an issue with regular netting as well...
Ok lets just guess

Done

Walleyedude, hold the door.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 10-21-2017, 07:01 AM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
Im really quite content with the way it is. You guys want change.
The changes you want require good monitoring. For crying out loud read your own posts.
Kurt you wanted suggestions. Lobby for more funding. You 3 can just keep whining.

Sheesh.
We were looking for a suggestions to help our fisheries.....


Brilliant plan....... more money!

Why didn't I, and every other person on the planet see that as the solution?

How about this, if you're going to wish for world piece, or more funding being directed towards our fisheries, wouldn't a stoking program along with retention make more sense???

I don't mind if you let the door slam, actually prefer it.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 10-21-2017, 07:35 AM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
Im really quite content with the way it is. You guys want change.
The changes you want require good monitoring. For crying out loud read your own posts.
Kurt you wanted suggestions. Lobby for more funding. You 3 can just keep whining.

Sheesh.
I think it is the other way around. You are arguing for things to stay the same way they are which is change... The walleye regulations are being changed every year to convert more and more lakes to tags without proper monitoring...

My method of slot limit does not require good monitoring. Nor does a minimum limit. Read the report... 50 cm minimum size limit is good enough to recover(not just maintain, recover) walleye on our lakes.

The only reason the tag system is being used is to confront the issues of the hockey stick fish stunting which could lead to long term issues. It isn't being used because it is the only way to maintain our walleye numbers, it is being used to try to have better control of the size of the fish.

A slot limit also helps combat hockey stick growth, as does stocking. The tag system is far from our only option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
Ok lets just guess

Done

Walleyedude, hold the door.
I don't guess. I read the facts provided to me by the government... You should try doing the same so that we can converse in an intelligent argument rather then having to listen to you spout crap like this.

Don't worry though I will do the leg work... Here is the blanket statement provided on every netting report. The actual estimated percent of each test is also given.



We are talking 100's if not 1000's of walleye killed in test nets every year and you want to make it a more regular occurrence? Maybe we should just get rid of the netting period, then there would for sure be enough walleye for the recreational fishermen...
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 10-21-2017, 08:01 AM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

After thinking about it more I bet a 50 cm size minimum(no slot) province wide would also be effective.

The problem with the previous 50 cm size was that not enough fish were getting big. But the reasons for that were 2 fold.

A) It was being used on lakes that were open to retention while other lakes were C&R or tags. This leads to uneven fishing pressure.

B) The limit was usually 3 which was too high on some if not most of these lakes.

If they set a province wide 1 over 50 cm limit then some lakes that see tons of pressure would still not grow many big fish(like say Pigeon) but that wouldn't really change things that much as even with the tag system there are very few fish over 55 cm...

Lakes that see less pressure would still produce bigger fish(Slave Lake being an obvious example that continues to produce fish even with a 43 cm limit).

Then if necessary to control populations of small fish on certain lakes that are being overrun they could use a tag system for those small fish. Say tags for 40-50 cm and set the tag numbers a bit low so it doesn't require yearly monitoring but still helps to reduce the number of small fish allowing the rest to grow faster and bigger.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 10-21-2017, 10:01 AM
fish99's Avatar
fish99 fish99 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: pigeon lake
Posts: 1,570
Default

how about a yearly limit on fish retention for example Chinook salmon at 15 a year you keep your limit you are done for the year. lakes with low catch rates will see low fishermen days. lakes with over populations will see more angler days . eventually the populations will balance out and size and species will increase . no one needs 50 fish days ,where is the challenge in that.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 10-21-2017, 02:21 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
I think it is the other way around. You are arguing for things to stay the same way they are which is change... The walleye regulations are being changed every year to convert more and more lakes to tags without proper monitoring...

I am not against 1 fish limits been speaking out for that for quite some time. I do not even oppose slot limits as long as they are post spawning age. And as said 1 fish blanket limit will just result in closed fisheries because of fishing pressure(closest to cities crashing first then going to the next lake and over fishing it......
Closer monitoring allows for quicker response time. Doesnt have to be every lake and it doesnt need to be every year, some discretion could be used.


My method of slot limit does not require good monitoring. Nor does a minimum limit. Read the report... 50 cm minimum size limit is good enough to recover(not just maintain, recover) walleye on our lakes.

No it doesnt, but would benefit from it(talk about keeping things the same Last sentence yes if fishing pressure and other are under control. 50cm can still fail if to many fish are removed.

The only reason the tag system is being used is to confront the issues of the hockey stick fish stunting which could lead to long term issues. It isn't being used because it is the only way to maintain our walleye numbers, it is being used to try to have better control of the size of the fish.

A slot limit also helps combat hockey stick growth, as does stocking. The tag system is far from our only option.



I don't guess. I read the facts provided to me by the government... You should try doing the same so that we can converse in an intelligent argument rather then having to listen to you spout crap like this.

I have read it too. If you are not guessing, im not sure what you are doing. lol

Don't worry though I will do the leg work... Here is the blanket statement provided on every netting report. The actual estimated percent of each test is also given.



We are talking 100's if not 1000's of walleye killed in test nets every year and you want to make it a more regular occurrence? Maybe we should just get rid of the netting period, then there would for sure be enough walleye for the recreational fishermen...
You realise they used to commercial fish most lakes right.
Got it no test netting because RAV cant keep them. Doesnt matter that they get valuable information from it.


I also do think 1 fish limits are the way to go. But not blanket though, other tools required such as tags possibly some others too.

Do not underestimate the fishermen. They can take a tremendous amount of fish.

1 fish limit province wide with minimal testing sounds like a winner.

Have fun Rav for the first couple years!

Then they will very likely be back to shutting them down.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.

Last edited by huntsfurfish; 10-21-2017 at 02:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 10-21-2017, 02:33 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
After thinking about it more I bet a 50 cm size minimum(no slot) province wide would also be effective.

The problem with the previous 50 cm size was that not enough fish were getting big. But the reasons for that were 2 fold.

A) It was being used on lakes that were open to retention while other lakes were C&R or tags. This leads to uneven fishing pressure.

Even 1 fish limits will create uneven fishing pressure

B) The limit was usually 3 which was too high on some if not most of these lakes.

Yes and if we had shorter testing intervals that would have been caught and had the option of going to 1 fish earlier which might have helped correct before having to close the fishing(o limit).


If they set a province wide 1 over 50 cm limit then some lakes that see tons of pressure would still not grow many big fish(like say Pigeon) but that wouldn't really change things that much as even with the tag system there are very few fish over 55 cm...

Lakes that see less pressure would still produce bigger fish(Slave Lake being an obvious example that continues to produce fish even with a 43 cm limit).

Then if necessary to control populations of small fish on certain lakes that are being overrun they could use a tag system for those small fish. Say tags for 40-50 cm and set the tag numbers a bit low so it doesn't require yearly monitoring but still helps to reduce the number of small fish allowing the rest to grow faster and bigger.
Still think better monitoring intervals would help no matter what type of limit or regs in place. While it is true may not get the money for it. Definitely harder to get if we dont ask for it. It is also true that some if not most of the waters that were shut down and are currently being shut down probably would not have been or would have been delayed at least if intervals were shorter.

Just want to add that there are only so many fish to go round no matter what the size/limit. You can not change that.

Seeings how I can not get you guys to see the benefits of more testing/money. I will leave it to you guys.
You guys wouldnt be Doctors or engineers if you were not smart. You have my respect for that.
But I am now out of this.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.

Last edited by huntsfurfish; 10-21-2017 at 03:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 10-21-2017, 03:11 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

oops
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 10-22-2017, 07:06 AM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fish99 View Post
how about a yearly limit on fish retention for example Chinook salmon at 15 a year you keep your limit you are done for the year. lakes with low catch rates will see low fishermen days. lakes with over populations will see more angler days . eventually the populations will balance out and size and species will increase . no one needs 50 fish days ,where is the challenge in that.
Good add. This will the slot size limit would be a way to stop those that would continue to take advantage of that 1 fish limit. Of course if anglers would honour that system which is something I think we have to assume in any case.

One other idea,
I still think the tag system could be modified if some here feel that the 2 or 3 limit a year is too restrictive. What about allowing up to two draw wins then for anglers? With the rule that the wins must be from separate area. Example, I didn't get my Pigeon first choice but I did win by 2nd choice at WhiteFish Lake in NB1...booya!
What if you won both PP2 and NB1. Say 3 under 43 cm at Buck and 3 over 50 cm at Wolf. Does that sound a bit more appealing?

Honestly, I would be in favor on trying something of the other ideas that others have posted here.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 10-22-2017, 07:22 AM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

On the subject of more funding such as HuntsFurFish has brought up. I'm not sure who here follows AFGA but here is a good read on where funding sits:

http://www.afga.org/pdf/NEWS/NR2017/...-20-Budget.pdf

.08%.... WTF are you going to innovate or change with that? So when Kurt says if your there is not going to be any more funding and asks what can you do with what you have, that is valid. The answer is, probably not a hell of a lot if you leave it in the Governments hands with a low on the totem pole, year after year, government run program.

So the answer to me is, industry partnerships and to foster innovation with them...not turn a blind eye on them. Putting in a frame work, if we call it that, the Government has to work with other stakeholder like AFGA, on a yearly basis, is change I would love to see. It is clear that leaving it in the hands of the Government is just not going to improve things over time.

The single most disturbing post on here to me is the last one from Bobalong. There is a clear example of innovation being squashed. That is an opportunity and solution brought to government that, instead of being embraced and worked through, barriers are put up so that it didn't go further. That is wrong thinking and a shame.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 10-22-2017, 08:45 AM
deschambault deschambault is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 385
Default

No one has mentioned southern reservoirs here. F&W has essentially placed a blanket no retention of pike or walleye on all the reservoirs near Calgary. This is despite the abundance of both species in many of these lakes. Why not have a 1 fish per day limit for 1 month or some other idea like that that should be relatively easy to monitor. You could apply for tags with dates on them so they could only be used at one per day. It just seems sad that I have to drive to Saskatchewan to eat a fish when I can catch at least as many close to home. I mainly practice catch and release but do love to eat the odd fish.
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 10-22-2017, 11:07 AM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deschambault View Post
No one has mentioned southern reservoirs here. F&W has essentially placed a blanket no retention of pike or walleye on all the reservoirs near Calgary. This is despite the abundance of both species in many of these lakes. Why not have a 1 fish per day limit for 1 month or some other idea like that that should be relatively easy to monitor. You could apply for tags with dates on them so they could only be used at one per day. It just seems sad that I have to drive to Saskatchewan to eat a fish when I can catch at least as many close to home. I mainly practice catch and release but do love to eat the odd fish.
Yup, short sighted retention closures with no alternative actions taken first, typical AEP management right now. The limit was 3 over 50 on most of those lakes. Why wasn't 1 or 2 tried before setting it to 0? What is the reason for the closure when some of these lakes have lots of fish in them? The only potential reason seems to be to get a few larger fish before they implement tags...

Why did they bother leaving the few lakes open that they did? They don't like those lakes so want them to see significant pressure increases? At least the destruction of PCR probably helped take a lot of that load this year.

Pretty sad seeing what Alberta anglers have to resort to in order to get a feed of fish these days. Hey at least you can buy high quality tuna, halibut, lobster etc cheaper then what it costs to go get a feed of fish locally though...
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 10-22-2017, 12:30 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Ok one last post.

My first encounter I think, was about twenty years ago or so but might have been 25, with a Southern Bio. The testing intervals were the pretty much the same then. And was told that was a budget thing.
Just so you know that this is not new.
And in that time frame populations and pressures have increased a lot.


I am from Lethbridge. I fish the Southern Reservoirs lots.

In a nine year span with only one test period. What could possibly go wrong? See post 142 and 143.

I have to say it, but I dont totally disagree with shutting things down when they are not being monitored very well. Would rather see them error on that side than keeping it open and maybe crashing. Now had it been a 2 year interval for example all those lakes could have gone to 1 fish from 3 and left open to see what the results are(and quite likely would still be good).

And if the test netting was a bad sample due to error or other reasons a second sample (immediate-preferable, or even in 2 years hopefully caught sooner) then waiting for another 5 years.

We also have a new government that might be a little more inclined to help with that.
Is more money and testing the answer?
It could have been.
And it could still be.
But it would still require some other changes.

One other thing, I dont have to convince Rav, Brandon, or the other guy.
I just have to show or convince others of the benefits.

That is all

Edit: I do not work for the government. So the only thing I would get out of this or benefit would be better fishing.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.

Last edited by huntsfurfish; 10-22-2017 at 12:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 10-22-2017, 02:06 PM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
I have to say it, but I dont totally disagree with shutting things down when they are not being monitored very well. Would rather see them error on that side than keeping it open and maybe crashing. Now had it been a 2 year interval for example all those lakes could have gone to 1 fish from 3 and left open to see what the results are(and quite likely would still be good).
What you say would make sense but only if you truly believe there was reason to worry about these lakes crashing? From what I have seen and heard that is not the case at least in a few of the waterbodies.

Case in point netting data for Eagle Lake the year before it was closed.

http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/...eport-2015.pdf

I see a healthy population of walleye with multiple younger age classes below the 50 cm limit that was current at the time as well as a few fish over it. I also see a pike population that is perhaps a little low for numbers(likely in part due to large population of small walleye) but has a good distribution of size and a decent number of small pike(which I find is often understated on these reports I believe due to the fact that small pike are usually hiding in the middle of the weed beds versus where they set these nets to try and catch walleye). I see a lake that is on par with many others across the province that see far less fishing pressure and in no way do I see anything that makes me think it had to be closed to retention.

Sure the lake doesn't quite meet representative lakes with sustainable harvest for both walleye and pike but if you review the netting data as much as I do you would realize they are unrealistic. Maybe possible for a lake to meet one or the other but very rarely ever both. Nor would I ever expect a lake like Eagle in such close proximity to a major city center to meet such idealised values.

That is just one example though.

We also have unwarranted river closures being proposed. Lakes closed prematurely due to worries about winter kill such as Cross Lake(which remains closed even though reports are of healthy populations, another lake which I forgot the name of was similarly just closed and quickly reopened though). Lakes with large walleye populations and no limit(Bellevue was a good example that they finally reopened albeit only for tags after large outcry and finally some netting data).

The examples are many and the reasons are often unsubstantiated. Similar to what you said I don't have to convert you. What I hope to do is open the eyes of other anglers to realize that AEP does not act on behalf of fishermen. They have a number of environmental and biological requirements that come first in their job and that is why they are more then happy to close waterbodies or set zero limits since it makes their job easier... There are often ways of reaching their goals(at least potential ways) that can be first attempted but we as anglers need to stand up(when necessary) and hold them accountable in order for them to try all these other avenues first.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 10-22-2017, 02:42 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
Ok one last post.

My first encounter I think, was about twenty years ago or so but might have been 25, with a Southern Bio. The testing intervals were the pretty much the same then. And was told that was a budget thing.
Just so you know that this is not new.
And in that time frame populations and pressures have increased a lot.


I am from Lethbridge. I fish the Southern Reservoirs lots.

In a nine year span with only one test period. What could possibly go wrong? See post 142 and 143.

I have to say it, but I dont totally disagree with shutting things down when they are not being monitored very well. Would rather see them error on that side than keeping it open and maybe crashing. Now had it been a 2 year interval for example all those lakes could have gone to 1 fish from 3 and left open to see what the results are(and quite likely would still be good).

And if the test netting was a bad sample due to error or other reasons a second sample (immediate-preferable, or even in 2 years hopefully caught sooner) then waiting for another 5 years.

We also have a new government that might be a little more inclined to help with that.
Is more money and testing the answer?
It could have been.
And it could still be.
But it would still require some other changes.

One other thing, I dont have to convince Rav, Brandon, or the other guy.
I just have to show or convince others of the benefits.

That is all

Edit: I do not work for the government. So the only thing I would get out of this or benefit would be better fishing.

I don't think you convinced anyone of anything. EVERYONE on the planet could tell you with more money it would solve the problem, heck if they had more money they could fire the biologists because they wouldn't need testing, they could just keep stocking the lakes and leave it at a 5 fish per person limit!!!


More money...... whoda thunk it.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 10-23-2017, 04:28 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
I don't think you convinced anyone of anything. EVERYONE on the planet could tell you with more money it would solve the problem, heck if they had more money they could fire the biologists because they wouldn't need testing, they could just keep stocking the lakes and leave it at a 5 fish per person limit!!!


More money...... whoda thunk it.
You really need to think before you type.

Had more money for testing been available as little as 10 years ago some of these lakes likely would have gone to 1 fish limit from 3 like what you and others are asking for.

Last post to someone that has threatened me on here.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.

Last edited by huntsfurfish; 10-23-2017 at 04:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 10-23-2017, 04:38 PM
huntsfurfish huntsfurfish is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 7,350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
What you say would make sense but only if you truly believe there was reason to worry about these lakes crashing? From what I have seen and heard that is not the case at least in a few of the waterbodies.

Case in point netting data for Eagle Lake the year before it was closed.

http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/...eport-2015.pdf

I see a healthy population of walleye with multiple younger age classes below the 50 cm limit that was current at the time as well as a few fish over it. I also see a pike population that is perhaps a little low for numbers(likely in part due to large population of small walleye) but has a good distribution of size and a decent number of small pike(which I find is often understated on these reports I believe due to the fact that small pike are usually hiding in the middle of the weed beds versus where they set these nets to try and catch walleye). I see a lake that is on par with many others across the province that see far less fishing pressure and in no way do I see anything that makes me think it had to be closed to retention.

Sure the lake doesn't quite meet representative lakes with sustainable harvest for both walleye and pike but if you review the netting data as much as I do you would realize they are unrealistic. Maybe possible for a lake to meet one or the other but very rarely ever both. Nor would I ever expect a lake like Eagle in such close proximity to a major city center to meet such idealised values.

That is just one example though.

We also have unwarranted river closures being proposed. Lakes closed prematurely due to worries about winter kill such as Cross Lake(which remains closed even though reports are of healthy populations, another lake which I forgot the name of was similarly just closed and quickly reopened though). Lakes with large walleye populations and no limit(Bellevue was a good example that they finally reopened albeit only for tags after large outcry and finally some netting data).

The examples are many and the reasons are often unsubstantiated. Similar to what you said I don't have to convert you. What I hope to do is open the eyes of other anglers to realize that AEP does not act on behalf of fishermen. They have a number of environmental and biological requirements that come first in their job and that is why they are more then happy to close waterbodies or set zero limits since it makes their job easier... There are often ways of reaching their goals(at least potential ways) that can be first attempted but we as anglers need to stand up(when necessary) and hold them accountable in order for them to try all these other avenues first.
We are talking walleye here. Doesnt matter what I think. And it doesnt matter what you think either. If AEP isnt comfortable with numbers they will error on the side of caution and shut the lake down. Remember 9 years is a long time. If those lakes are currently 3 fish, doesnt matter, it will go to zero.

I have probably read the same studies as you and then some over the course of time not that matters much. Just saying.
__________________
.
eat a snickers


made in Alberta__ born n raised.


FS-Tinfool hats by the roll.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 10-23-2017, 06:14 PM
Tofinoguy's Avatar
Tofinoguy Tofinoguy is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: World Famous Tofino, BC
Posts: 150
Default

I'd be eating pretty good if i lived in Alberta
__________________
Sent back in time to alter the future of selected fish
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 10-23-2017, 06:29 PM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntsfurfish View Post
We are talking walleye here. Doesnt matter what I think. And it doesnt matter what you think either. If AEP isnt comfortable with numbers they will error on the side of caution and shut the lake down. Remember 9 years is a long time. If those lakes are currently 3 fish, doesnt matter, it will go to zero.

I have probably read the same studies as you and then some over the course of time not that matters much. Just saying.
I am not only talking walleye nor will I as the big picture is what is important. Only talking walleye is what has got us to this point now where our perch, pike and whitefish populations are hurting on a number of these lakes. Not pushing back enough is what has lead to constant reductions in limits and closures relating to walleye, pike, cutties, grayling and more... I have only been fishing here for around 6-7 years now and it is disgusting how things have been changing even in that short time even though I would be willing to bet that the populations of these species province wide have likely increased over this time considering the restrictive regulations and changes like removal of commercial fishing etc.

And no it does not only matter what AEP thinks... That is my whole point... We as anglers(well some of us anyways) are capable of telling a sheep from a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Some more numbers regarding Eagle Lake.

Estimated walleye population in 2015, 238/0.013 = 28,300.

Estimated pike population, 40/0.003 = 13,300.

Thousands of fish and the "length distribution shows very strong recruitment" and "The fishery appears to be supported by several year-classes".

And the best part.

Quote:
the large density of immature Walleye in Eagle Lake, dependant on its Fisheries Management Objectives, may provide opportunities for carefully managed harvests.
Good thing they closed retention!!!

Sad that AEP doesn't even take their own recommendations and that they choose to close these lakes to "achieve management objectives" whatever those might be... Whatever they are I guarantee you they are not in the anglers best interest...
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 10:37 AM.


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