Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fishing Discussion

View Poll Results: What type of stillwater trout fishery would you prefer at your favourite lake?
C&R with the chance of catching trout up to 25" 112 42.75%
Limit of 1 under 18" with a good chance of fish over 22" 47 17.94%
Limit of 1 over 18" with a good chance of fish over 20" 38 14.50%
Limit of 3 any size with a good chance of fish over 16" 49 18.70%
Limit of 5 any size with a good chance of fish over 12" 16 6.11%
Voters: 262. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old 02-28-2011, 08:19 PM
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 not going to argue, im happy your kids are or were really gifted....my kids at 3-4 couldnt cast well or safely....in fact all they could do was reel in.
Dave is doing really well arguing for the B side......I have yet to see 1 person say the quality fishery has worked to their satisfation.
I fished Bullshead when the regs were implemented. The numbers of fish were greatly improved as was the sizes. I could of harvested my 1 over 20 inches but I was just happy catching fish all day.

Understanding that new ideas take tweaking...F&W needs to control their stocking rates better. They have tended to over stock. When that happens...growth rates are reduced. Once F&W get that right...they all will benefit.

But yes...I have fished Bullshead and it has been a hit with everyone that I have talked to. Probably 20 one day fishing alone.

I have also fished Champion. Unfortunately very small and prone to poaching. I did well and was happy with the results. I am waiting to fish Police this year.

I think maybe people simply missed your question but I have seen many threads on AOF and another forum with many raving about Bullshead. I have not followed Muir as much as I have not fished it. But I have also heard great things. I thought this or the other thread attested to that fact.

Cheers

Sun
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 02-28-2011, 08:20 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Andersen View Post
Guys,

Sorry the Govt mislead you. Calling a lake Quality is true only if it is. Just proposing a regulation change hardly means that it will happen.

So far, Beaver was a QLF and is no longer.
Ironside still is for the moment - that may be over this summer.
Muir maybe
Fiesta is not and will not become a QLF under present stocking numbers

Others not yet if ever.

Just call a lake a Quality Fishery means that the biologists do what is required to get it to the Quality status and keep it there. So far of the lakes proposed, the record isn't good.


Don
Just so you are not confusing people...your big concern with why this is not working is?

Stocking rates too high?
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 02-28-2011, 08:23 PM
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
lol...back at you

simply answer these questions please....with simple answers...no books please
are the 17 lakes now in place working?
if not -is it not fair to ask until you develope a system that makes those 17 work... you just cant have anymore?
and if you say they are now quality fisheries, how many more do you want?
They work...but F&W have to stop over stocking. That is the reason why 1 in a million trout will grow bigger than 14 inches before harvest at a put and take lake. Even if they beat the odds and survived...they can't grow much due to lack of food.

It is a simple variable to fix and we have to realize that. Tweaking is required. There is no major hurdle to overcome.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 02-28-2011, 08:30 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
They work...but F&W have to stop over stocking. That is the reason why 1 in a million trout will grow bigger than 14 inches before harvest at a put and take lake. Even if they beat the odds and survived...they can't grow much due to lack of food.

It is a simple variable to fix and we have to realize that. Tweaking is required. There is no major hurdle to overcome.
so your answer yes comes with a 'BUT'

okay so really what your proposing is reduce the stocking rate in the 17 lakes now listed as quality?
then once this is proven to work...you would like to increase the amount of lakes under the quality fishery classification.

I wish i understood the simplicity of your proposal...because im all for it....dump the extra fish normally dumped into a quality classed lake into a kids pond....everyone wins
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 02-28-2011, 08:32 PM
pope pope is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 335
Default

Anyone know who and how they determine the stocking rates in the Rocky area?
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 02-28-2011, 08:36 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pope View Post
Anyone know who and how they determine the stocking rates in the Rocky area?
The SRD biologists figure it out by throwing darts at a board.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 02-28-2011, 08:38 PM
huntin'fool's Avatar
huntin'fool huntin'fool is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 821
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Andersen View Post
Guys,

Sorry the Govt mislead you. Calling a lake Quality is true only if it is. Just proposing a regulation change hardly means that it will happen.

So far, Beaver was a QLF and is no longer.
Ironside still is for the moment - that may be over this summer.
Muir maybe
Fiesta is not and will not become a QLF under present stocking numbers

Others not yet if ever.

Just call a lake a Quality Fishery means that the biologists do what is required to get it to the Quality status and keep it there. So far of the lakes proposed, the record isn't good.


Don
I like the comment, Don - calling a lake Quality is true only if it is...how true. Regulations will do nothing for an overstocked lake with limited food supplies.

To add to the current status of lakes.
Pit 24, 35, and 45 do hold some good trout and stocking rates are more along the lines of proper management. The thing is though, is these lakes are brand new to the public angling population. These lake are reclaimed mine pits and only last year were opened for angling. These types of regulations are what is going to be implemented for the next batch of new lakes opening up on coal valley - the fish guy in Edson told me so.

But these are new lakes, we're not getting any of our old haunts back that used to hold averages of 3 - 4 lbs.

It seems that the govt is scared of changing things but dont mind implementing these types of "quality" regs on new lakes...now the folks who like to eat the freshly stocked trout cant complain as these lakes have never been open to them in the first place. Now this tells us something....the govt realizes there is a demand and need for these lakes, otherwise why bother?

Also, Muskiki - not a quality lake. Reason?? Lack of enforcement... Reason?? Provincial Parks and Recreation. I would be surprised if anyone in the Edson district has even heard of Muskiki Lake. I fish there, have reported several guys coming off the lake with stringers of cutties. The F&W guys in Edson say they will pass it on to Tourism, Parks and Recreation. Never hear back.....


I digressssssss...........
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 02-28-2011, 09:07 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntin'fool View Post
But these are new lakes, we're not getting any of our old haunts back that used to hold averages of 3 - 4 lbs.

It seems that the govt is scared of changing things but dont mind implementing these types of "quality" regs on new lakes...now the folks who like to eat the freshly stocked trout cant complain as these lakes have never been open to them in the first place. Now this tells us something....the govt realizes there is a demand and need for these lakes, otherwise why bother?
The SRD's position is to not create "quality" fisheries in currently existing stocked trout lakes however they don't mind doing it in new bodies of water. I have no problem with that at all but I'll betcha some "quality" fishery fellas will because it's too far, too hard to get to To the mines with ya you whiny buggers!
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 02-28-2011, 09:55 PM
goldscud goldscud is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,960
Default

They dropped the stocking rate at Bullshead from 75,000 down to 30,000. That frees up some stocking resources.
I believe the stocking rate is/will be reduced at Police outpost as well.
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 02-28-2011, 10:05 PM
DuckBrat's Avatar
DuckBrat DuckBrat is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,349
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
So you've fished all 300 trout lakes in Alberta then cuz you commented on them? It still makes no sense to me.
Yes, very close to all of them sir, almost all of them in two summers of work actually, thanks. Now to fish those new coal pits this spring. Just an observation but I thought you were done 5 posts ago. If anything your passionate about Status Quo, good on you.
__________________
Respecting the land, water, fish, and wildlife is what makes true hunters and fishermen.

Road hunting is not hunting.
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 02-28-2011, 10:34 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckBrat View Post
Yes, very close to all of them sir, almost all of them in two summers of work actually, thanks. Now to fish those new coal pits this spring. Just an observation but I thought you were done 5 posts ago. If anything your passionate about Status Quo, good on you.
not to side track the discussion but you said you were done one page ago also in post #169.
no one is ever done lol....just need a recess break
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 02-28-2011, 10:45 PM
DuckBrat's Avatar
DuckBrat DuckBrat is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,349
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
not to side track the discussion but you said you were done one page ago also in post #169.
no one is ever done lol....just need a recess break
Ahhh, I see the miscommunication. Done for that post not for the thread but good eye.

Recess so much simpler of a time.

My dream consists of an Alberta Stocked Trout Fishery that is Managed for Quality. We could start at a ratio of 50:50 (1/2 Meat to 1/2 Trophy fisheries), prove to you how good it could be, and go form there. Out.
__________________
Respecting the land, water, fish, and wildlife is what makes true hunters and fishermen.

Road hunting is not hunting.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 02-28-2011, 11:47 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckBrat View Post
Yes, very close to all of them sir, almost all of them in two summers of work actually, thanks. Now to fish those new coal pits this spring. Just an observation but I thought you were done 5 posts ago. If anything your passionate about Status Quo, good on you.
Well, good on you. I'll bet that there's a few dugouts around here that you haven't fished yet though.
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 03-01-2011, 08:06 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
so your answer yes comes with a 'BUT'

okay so really what your proposing is reduce the stocking rate in the 17 lakes now listed as quality?
then once this is proven to work...you would like to increase the amount of lakes under the quality fishery classification.

I wish i understood the simplicity of your proposal...because im all for it....dump the extra fish normally dumped into a quality classed lake into a kids pond....everyone wins
Let me try and simplify how I see your position.

If there were reasonable numbers of trout to harvest but over a certain size, and ice fishing was allowed would you care if all lakes had regulations limiting to harvest over a certain size whether that is 1 or 2 over 16 inches or 20 inches?

Maybe some quality lakes should allow some ice fishing at least to see if it is a problem. Bait fishing is harder as it does have much higher catch and release mortality.
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 03-01-2011, 10:56 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
Maybe some quality lakes should allow some ice fishing at least to see if it is a problem. Bait fishing is harder as it does have much higher catch and release mortality.
It looks to me that some quality lakes are already open for icefishing. How come all of this information is going unnoticed by everyone that wants more "quality" fisheries?

READILY-ACCESSIBLE STOCKED TROUT WATERS MANAGED FOR HIGH-QUALITY OBJECTIVES
WATERBODY UNIT LIMIT SIZE BAIT CLOSURES
Bullshead PP1 1 > 50 cm Bait Ban Nov 1 - Mar 31
Police (Outpost) PP1 1 > 50 cm Bait Ban Nov 1 - Mar 31
Kerbe's PP2 1 > 50 cm Bait Ban Dec 1 - Mar 31
Muir PP2 1 > 50 cm Bait Ban Nov 1 - Apr 30
Champion ES1 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Muskiki ES2 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Beaver ES2 1/1 > 40 cm & < 40 cm Bait Ban Dec 1 - Mar 31
Fiesta ES2 0 N/A Bait Ban Nov 1 - Apr 15
Ironside ES2 0 N/A Bait Ban Nov 1 - Apr 15
Silkstone ES2 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Lovett ES3 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Pit 24 ES3 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Pit 35 ES3 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Pit 45 ES3 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open

Lower Pierre Grey's ES4 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Figure 8 NB3 5 N/A Bait Allowed Open
Sulphur NB3 5 N/A Bait Allowed Open
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 03-01-2011, 11:03 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Okay, now that I have nailed down the facts for you fellas about how many "quality" lakes there are in Alberta, and it wasn't 2, does anyone want to do a count of the number of C&R lakes and add them to the total number of "quality" lakes?
How come no one wants to touch this one?
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 03-01-2011, 11:08 AM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
How come no one wants to touch this one?
Cuz the debate is over....you win!!!!! and because my name was next to yours in another thread....I WIN TOO.
nah nah nah nah hey hey hey goodbye
We are the champions of the world.
Congrats to you and me....were going to disney land
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 03-01-2011, 11:36 AM
pikester's Avatar
pikester pikester is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Strathmore
Posts: 536
Default

Very interesting p.o.v. here on this volatile subject! Just an idea, only thought about this while reading Don Anderson's last post. Let's just say that we made sure that several stocky ponds close to major populations stayed put & take while several less "accessable" lakes/ponds were deemed minimal stock, special C & R regulation fisheries. The amount of money going toward stocking would theoretically stay the same as is now. Could this not mean that by maintaining the same level of funding into the stocking program but reducing the # of waterbodies to stock, we could effectively increase the # of fish dumped into these remaining put & take fisheries thereby increasing the opportunity for people's kids to have high catch rates at a nearby location all season while giving us trophy hunters more water to ply our trade on?

Obviously I realise that any given waterbody can only sustain so many fish at a time but maybe having the money & hatchery fish available could mean 2 or possibly 3 stockings per put & take waterbody per year instead of just in the spring?

Just my 2 cents

Last edited by pikester; 03-01-2011 at 11:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 03-01-2011, 11:44 AM
Bigtoad's Avatar
Bigtoad Bigtoad is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
Congrats to you and me....were going to disney land
I think you're already there Chubb.... at least a place much like it. Something along the lines of "only in your dreams...."

Perhaps we're just taking a break... it's hard work butting your head up against a brick wall (that wall is your thick head by the way). For only 10 votes out of 160, you're sure a vocal bunch.

God help us.
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 03-01-2011, 11:48 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
I think you're already there Chubb.... at least a place much like it. Something along the lines of "only in your dreams...."

Perhaps we're just taking a break... it's hard work butting your head up against a brick wall (that wall is your thick head by the way). For only 10 votes out of 160, you're sure a vocal bunch.

God help us.

hahhahahahahah i love the name calling...actually when the name calling starts im sure we are winning
Reply With Quote
  #201  
Old 03-01-2011, 12:05 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikester View Post
Let's just say that we made sure that several stocky ponds close to major populations stayed put & take while several less "accessable" lakes/ponds were deemed minimal stock, special C & R regulation fisheries. The amount of money going toward stocking would theoretically stay the same as is now. Could this not mean that by maintaining the same level of funding into the stocking program but reducing the # of waterbodies to stock, we could effectively increase the # of fish dumped into these remaining put & take fisheries thereby increasing the opportunity for people's kids to have high catch rates at a nearby location all season while giving us trophy hunters more water to ply our trade on?
Some people might say that is the way that it is now.

There are currently 28 stocked trout lakes in Alberta that are either "quality" fisheries or C&R, plus the 30 rivers/streams on the eastern slopes that are C&R, plus the new "quality" fishery mine pits that SRD are opening up. Is that not enough to satisfy the trophy anglers? If not, how much is enough...........everything?

If you live in Calgary and you want easy to catch big fish then what is the problem with going to Bullshead? Is it too far or what?

IMO if you add in the stocked lakes that currently hold bigger fish, like the ones that I fish in, there is ample opportunity for everyone to catch big fish.
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 03-01-2011, 12:06 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Both of you guys are hilarious.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 03-01-2011, 12:16 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
For only 10 votes out of 160, you're sure a vocal bunch.

God help us.
There's actually 11. I changed my vote from 3 x 16" trout once I figured out that there were bigger than 12" trout in the lake that I could catch. Ya see, that way I can catch a big fish and put it back but keep 5 eatin' sized ones if I wanted to. Someone else might want to keep 5 x 16" sized ones but I don't think that they taste as good.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 03-01-2011, 12:19 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

i forgot to vote....any suggestions?
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 03-01-2011, 12:45 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
i forgot to vote....any suggestions?
Limit of 5 with a good chance of catching 30" trout.
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 03-01-2011, 01:11 PM
Bigtoad's Avatar
Bigtoad Bigtoad is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
i forgot to vote....any suggestions?
I have a "suggestion" but it's not on how you vote...

Anywhoooo...... HunterDave, I think the issue is that by looking at special regs on our streams (the Bow, North Ram, etc, you can see what a difference they make). You can not tell me that fishing on the Bow would be as good or as much fun if there weren't 20"+ fish in there, and a lot of them. We want similar experiences on stillwater fisheries as well.

And NO, bullshead is not enough... there are over a million people in Calgary and many, many fishermen. It's not enough.

And the lakes that you do regularly catch 20" fish, you better guard them like the holy grail, because there will be less and less isolated lakes and more and more fishermen. My guess is that in 5 years you will be back on this forum complaining that the places you used to be able to catch bigger fish and find a little solitude, are not nearly what they used to be. That is of course, unless more restrictive regs and better stocking rates are implemented on MANY more waterbodies (no, not all...relax) to better reflect the growing number of anglers and the concerns of those anglers.

And let me again attempt to tackle the "easier" question that you keep bringing up. I love fishing the North Raven River. I love flyfishing there because it is a fantastic challenge. Even though there are a lot of fish in there, and many, many big fish, you can't go there expecting to catch one of them. I've been skunked a few times (usually really early in the year) but I've also experienced some phenomenal fishing days with several fish over 20" on the dry. I prefer the flyrod there because it just adds to the challenge. If it wasn't so difficult or as technical of a fishery and had lots of tiny fish, I wouldn't love going there nearly as much. With the amount of fishing pressure it gets, I know I'm not alone.

Same thing goes for lakes. It's easy catching 5 little hatchery fish that have just been stocked. Heck, I could probably just tie a fly that looks like the fish pellets they feed them and have a hay-day catching everything in sight. However, for there to be much sport in it, then there does need to be a chance of catching a big fish. The old saying, "they don't get big by being stupid," is true in most lakes. Catching a big fish isn't just about its size but about the challenge of not only hooking it, but in trying to get the beast to the boat as well. If anything, I don't want easier fishing, I want more difficult fishing (at least for the larger ones. If there are still some stocked yearly, there should still be some push-over fish for kids and beginners to get into).

Fishing is a "sport" still right? Maybe you like to play hockey against a bunch of kids and call that sport, but I don't. Maybe you like to go fishing just to fill your freezer, but again, that's not sport; that's subsidizing your grocery bill (although it would be much cheaper just to buy 5 fish from your grocery store).

You talk about how great the Bow is but then when someone wants a similar experience on a lake, suddenly it's a big deal? I don't get it. Unless of course, you don't think the Bow is that great of a fishery, in which case, enjoy Disneyland!

Cheers.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 03-01-2011, 01:13 PM
pikester's Avatar
pikester pikester is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Strathmore
Posts: 536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Some people might say that is the way that it is now.

There are currently 28 stocked trout lakes in Alberta that are either "quality" fisheries or C&R, plus the 30 rivers/streams on the eastern slopes that are C&R, plus the new "quality" fishery mine pits that SRD are opening up. Is that not enough to satisfy the trophy anglers? If not, how much is enough...........everything?

If you live in Calgary and you want easy to catch big fish then what is the problem with going to Bullshead? Is it too far or what?

IMO if you add in the stocked lakes that currently hold bigger fish, like the ones that I fish in, there is ample opportunity for everyone to catch big fish.
As has been mentioned before, just because Fisheries slaps a "quality fishery" tag on a waterbody does not mean it is. As for your question yes, for me Bullshead is a little far to go for an afternoon of flyfishing. Might do it once or twice a season but that's about it. One of my favourite place to fish used to be North Raven River but it's a 3+ hr trip for me now so I don't go there very often either. Don't worry about me anyway, I have a lot of fun catching trophy sized trout in the Bow so it's not as burning an issue for me as it is for some guys here, but it would be nice to have more than 1 or 2 options to regularly fish a sizable population of trophy sized trout on stillwaters within 2hrs of Strathmore, Red Deer, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 03-01-2011, 02:12 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
And the lakes that you do regularly catch 20" fish, you better guard them like the holy grail, because there will be less and less isolated lakes and more and more fishermen. My guess is that in 5 years you will be back on this forum complaining that the places you used to be able to catch bigger fish and find a little solitude, are not nearly what they used to be. That is of course, unless more restrictive regs and better stocking rates are implemented on MANY more waterbodies (no, not all...relax) to better reflect the growing number of anglers and the concerns of those anglers.
The lakes that I fish in are not a big secret to people. IMO The reason that they are as good as they are is because allot of anglers are just too lazy to go out of their way to fish them. If you don't want to drive 2 hours to get to one of them then that's your problem. I can't see that attitude changing anytime soon so I figure that 5 years from now the lakes will still be the same as they are today.

Just to clarify about the lakes that I fish. I don't catch a 20" trout everytime I catch a fish, like in a "quality" lake. I might catch only eatin sized ones one day, a dozen 16" sized the next, a mix the next and nothing, yet the next. Every once in awhile I might catch a 20" trout which is something special to me.

Like someone mentioned in an earlier post, catching allot of 20" fish all of the time gets real old real fast. I figure that the only way of curing people of this "big fish all of the time only" syndrome is for you to go somewhere where you can do it and keep you there until you're sick of catching them. After the thrill has worn off a bit then you wouldn't mind going out to fish just for the enjoyment of fishing, regardless of what size of fish you catch.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 03-01-2011, 02:30 PM
Bigtoad's Avatar
Bigtoad Bigtoad is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 390
Default

I'm not disagreeing with you. I don't go to the North Raven and expect to catch a 20" fish every time. It's true, it would get boring if I knew I was going to catch several big fish every time, especially if they're dumb fish. I go because of the challenge and part of that challenge is the potential to catch a monster, and a crafty one at that.

Go to Strubel and fish as long as you want, with whatever you want and you're not going to catch one over 20". Apparently it used to have fish to 10lbs so the issue isn't carrying capacity. When the opportunity for a range of sizes isn't there, neither is some of the excitement. Disagree?

And don't hold your breath that a lake 2 hours away won't change. I drive 5hrs to get to a lake with some lunkers but even it has deteriorated over the past couple of years because of the 5 fish limit and more fishing pressure. I could drive 14hrs to Manitoba where they actually know how to manage a fishery but at some point, I do need to draw the line.

I hope it isn't true for your gems.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 03-01-2011, 02:41 PM
Doc's Avatar
Doc Doc is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 492
Default

Just because SRD has tagged a bunch of lakes "quality" lakes, doesn't mean they are. SRD's definition of quality has to be looked at first and foremost. Trout over what, 2 pounds is quality? Not in my books. My definition of quality is 5lbs and up. So a quality lake to me would a good chance at a 5 pounder on any given day with the odd chance of hooking into a 10+ pounder. These lakes are available in BC, Sask and Manitoba so why not here (and the lakes in the parkland region of Manitoba are NOT pay to play BTW). I'm glad that SRD has taken the first step of introducing quality lakes to our province but they need to grow a pair and convert a few of the lakes that get stocked with 40,000+ dinks every spring around major centers to also include the quality regulations. For those that ask why. The same reason you want your put and take lakes, because that's what we are asking for. When Don and the boys started Beaver and then when we did Muir, people got a taste of what could be. Then Bullshead, Police and well now you see the list. Why so many? Because SRD put up a poll and that's what Alberta's anglers wanted to see. Ain't nothing wrong with the Chickakoo's of Alberta but when you see how much pressure is on Muir compared to it, well there's a reason why Muir looks like a bowl of cheerios and Chickakoo sees very little pressure. The problem as I see it now is not enough quality fisheries around major centers, SRD's definition of quality just plain sucks and to have a quality fishery, they actually have to manage it as a quality fishery and not just put some special regs on it and stock the hell out it. They need to actually do some work on them and study the fisheries to see how they can improve them to be optimum fisheries from year to year. How many quality lakes should we have in Alberta? I'd like around 30% but it doesn't really matter until they start managing them properly. Until then, it's all just eye candy.

Here's a video of the Muir Lake Project for those that are interested.
The Muir Lake Project
__________________
Visit my BLOG.
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 05:43 PM.


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