Pike and Walleye Management Surveys

[RavYak]

Hope you guys feel like wasting a few hours reading and filling out surveys cause they just dumped a bunch more on us.

They are giving us anglers a say on some things but not all. As expected a bias towards more tags and or C&R but a couple chances to open up fisheries if enough people vote to do so.

https://talkaep.alberta.ca/northern-..._tool#tool_tab

[SNAPFisher]

Good to see additional input asked for. Looks like they are sharpening the focus. The best part is at least you can provide input. I encourage anyone interested to take them. Doesn't mean you can't take a departure stance on any of these.

[guru fisher]

for one summer open up 1 walleye slot size see how the lakes manage it. simple

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by guru fisher

for one summer open up 1 walleye slot size see how the lakes manage it. simple

That has been beat to death on here. Pretty much to the point of ridiculous...by some.

Regardless, that is obviously not the management direction that will be taken but you are certainly welcome to voice that to the powers that be.

[PlayDoh]

Originally Posted by guru fisher

for one summer open up 1 walleye slot size see how the lakes manage it. simple

1 - it would take years if not decades to know how a Lake was effected by that.
2 - all lakes are different. Some near collapse some near over-populated.
3 - some lakes couldn’t ‘manage’ it and that kind of experiment would just kill them. Then what?
It’s kinda like saying “let everyone take a moose and we’ll see if there’s any left after a year”.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tikka300]

Good to see they are asking for public input but horrible survey design. All questions are bias toward the government suggested management strategy - TAG's FOR EVERYTHING or KEEP LARGER FISH. When you read the questions and their "science behind it" they are simply trying to baffle you with bull**** and get you to pick their chosen management strategy.

Even when you select an alternate option you have 200 characters to try and describe yourself which is difficult when there is not a simple answer. As with every fishery survey I have completed this one will be followed up with an e-mail to actually include my input.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by Tikka300

Good to see they are asking for public input but horrible survey design. All questions are bias toward the government suggested management strategy - TAG's FOR EVERYTHING or KEEP LARGER FISH. When you read the questions and their "science behind it" they are simply trying to baffle you with bull**** and get you to pick their chosen management strategy.

Even when you select an alternate option you have 200 characters to try and describe yourself which is difficult when there is not a simple answer. As with every fishery survey I have completed this one will be followed up with an e-mail to actually include my input.

Yup and what is the chances they will even bother to read the "other" submissions. Or better yet the chances that enough people say the same thing in other to actually outweigh the number of people that voted for one of the other options?

Some of the questions actually caught me off guard like offering to open up Sylvan Lake walleye. Then other times they give no options like closing pike retention on Buck Lake. I must be in an odd situation because I have never struggled to catch pike at Buck and actually found it one of the easier lakes to catch a keeper at(way easier then Battle for example).

It does get very frustrating when they word the survey as they did for Sylvan pretty much saying if they set the limit to one walleye it won't be sustainable and the fishery will crash... Why hasn't Buck crashed? It sees lots of pressure too and is overrun with walleye. Why because as they have previously told us minimum limits work... So why would opening Sylvan Lake walleye up destroy the fishery? Not hard to realize it wouldn't, and it would barely effect the size too since they are mostly small anyways... Unless when they say open it up to 1,2 or 3 fish they mean with no size limits(which of course would be stupid and would wreck the walleye population).

I like that they are trying to get feedback but I don't like how lots of the questions are worded and I also don't like that the results aren't public(so they could just go and say whatever they wanted anyways). When they posted the result type information about the tags for pike survey saying 60+% of anglers agreed with tags for pike I wasn't sure that I believe that and if true it is quite disappointing which anglers must be bothering to fill out these surveys(maybe not anglers at all???).

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by Tikka300

Even when you select an alternate option you have 200 characters to try and describe yourself which is difficult when there is not a simple answer. As with every fishery survey I have completed this one will be followed up with an e-mail to actually include my input.

Sounds good. I did the same.

One of the lakes I was concerned with was Gull. As in why is it not listed in PP2 with the rest? My concern is the ridiculous pike limit of 3 over 63 still in place while places close by like Sylvan will likely be zero retention. Talk about taking a lake that was really good for pike, is now a "meh" of it's recent former self, and pretty much leaving it to be pillaged. Not good in my books and I let them know.