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 93 68.89%
No 26 19.26%
Don't Care 16 11.85%
Voters: 135. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-06-2011, 04:33 PM
HunterDave's Avatar
HunterDave HunterDave is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 16,481
Default Poll on Proposed Fishing Regulation Changes for Kananakis Lakes

Do You Support A Proposed Fishing Regulation Change For Upper and Lower Kananaskis Lakes?


Current regulations - "Open all year-Trout (except bull trout) limit 3; Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout over 30 cm; Bait Ban."

Proposed Regulations - "Open all year-Trout (except bull trout) limit 1; Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout over 50 cm; Bait Ban."

Additional information and discussion about this subject can be found at:

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=77783
__________________
“The whole problem with any issue is that fools and fanatics are always certain of their position, while wise people are full of doubt and questions.” Bertrand Russell
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-06-2011, 06:20 PM
birchy birchy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 209
Default

Wholeheartedly.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-07-2011, 07:35 AM
jusfloatin jusfloatin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 188
Default

bump
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-07-2011, 04:04 PM
birchy birchy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 209
Default

Ttt
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-07-2011, 04:38 PM
BobLoblaw's Avatar
BobLoblaw BobLoblaw is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,019
Thumbs up

Absotively posilutely!!!
__________________
Peace out!
-Steve-
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-07-2011, 09:29 PM
Willowtrail's Avatar
Willowtrail Willowtrail is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,230
Default

Fished it for the first time this fall. Plan on spending a week there this year and making it an annual adventure. Definetly agree on the change. Love the opportunity to catch a trophy Bull for a reproduction.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-07-2011, 09:42 PM
Dust1n Dust1n is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 4,306
Default

i agree 100% if u wanna keep fish go to the frozen food section at your local store or go to a stalked pond that can be restalked 2 times a year dont keep our native trophy sized fish!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-08-2011, 12:16 AM
HunterDave's Avatar
HunterDave HunterDave is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 16,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Hunter7 View Post
i agree 100% if u wanna keep fish go to the frozen food section at your local store or go to a stalked pond that can be restalked 2 times a year dont keep our native trophy sized fish!
That sounds like a disagree.
__________________
“The whole problem with any issue is that fools and fanatics are always certain of their position, while wise people are full of doubt and questions.” Bertrand Russell
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-08-2011, 06:18 AM
jusfloatin jusfloatin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 188
Default

I wonder how many of people realize that the introduction of these proposed changes will make this lake a catch and release lake for a minimum of 2 years with a better chance of it be 3 years.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-08-2011, 11:56 AM
some guy some guy is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 30
Default

What I realise is that I must release anything under 50 cm. Not in 2 years. Not in 3 years. But as soon as the new rules come into effect. I can KEEP anything over 50 cm. Not in 2 years. Not in 3 years. But as soon as the new rules come into effect.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-08-2011, 12:13 PM
jusfloatin jusfloatin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by some guy View Post
What I realise is that I must release anything under 50 cm. Not in 2 years. Not in 3 years. But as soon as the new rules come into effect. I can KEEP anything over 50 cm. Not in 2 years. Not in 3 years. But as soon as the new rules come into effect.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Correct except you can only keep one and no bulls period as you know.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-08-2011, 07:11 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Perchville
Posts: 13,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jusfloatin View Post
Correct except you can only keep one and no bulls period as you know.
Why not keep the debate on the other thread... Saves me correcting the facts in more than one place :-)

There has been trout stocked in the last 4 years. Any of those survivors will be on their way to 50 cm. Patience is not so difficult if you realize the long term benefits. It seems to be short sighted to take a trout just after stocking from the hatchery instead of letting them grow a bit more. On the other hand...the other thread listed tons of water where they still stock the small fish and you can harvest them...still with pellets in their guts.

These regulations are NOT catch and release. Trying to twist the facts to imply that it is catch and release somehow...seems to be misleading.

These are put and take regulations. Pure and simple... Just improving the overall quality of the fishery for everyone to benefit. Totally everyone will benefit if one is not short sighted.

IMHO
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-08-2011, 07:14 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Perchville
Posts: 13,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jusfloatin View Post
Correct except you can only keep one and no bulls period as you know.
But the ONE is 5-6 times more fish that the 3 you can kill today.

So where is the deficit you seem to be implying? I strongly support not killing bull trout. They definitely bring a smile to people's faces when the catch one and they just can't sustain an appreciable harvest as history has short. These adfluvial/lake bull trout are very rare in Alberta. Enjoy eating the 20 inch cutthroat.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-08-2011, 07:47 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,655
Default

note to self
chubbdarter....keep repeating....
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
ma said if you cant say something nice dont say anything
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-08-2011, 08:40 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Perchville
Posts: 13,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
But the ONE is 5-6 times more fish that the 3 you can kill today.

So where is the deficit you seem to be implying? I strongly support not killing bull trout. They definitely bring a smile to people's faces when the catch one and they just can't sustain an appreciable harvest as history has short. These adfluvial/lake bull trout are very rare in Alberta. Enjoy eating the 20 inch cutthroat.
Actually I meant one twenty incher is worth 5-6 12 inchers. The math of 1 twenty incher can be twice the weight of the 3 - 12 inchers people are catching now.

Also the bull trout are needed to keep the sucker population down. As everyone knows that fish Chain Lakes down south...they put some bulls in there to eat the huge sucker population down a bit. How many suckers are caught there? I wonder how the bulls are doing in Chain. I have not heard many people talking about catching them there.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-08-2011, 09:01 PM
trainerdave trainerdave is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: west of the 5th
Posts: 276
Default

Caught 2 bullies one day two summers ago in Chain lakes. none since.far fewer suckers there now but it appears they are on the rise again so perhaps they could stock a few Bulls again...Back to Kananaskis...it would be nice to not have to drive in to the kootenays to catch a decent trout-most people probably feel the same by the looks of the poll so far...D.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-08-2011, 09:19 PM
Russ C Russ C is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
Why not keep the debate on the other thread... Saves me correcting the facts in more than one place :-)

There has been trout stocked in the last 4 years. Any of those survivors will be on their way to 50 cm. Patience is not so difficult if you realize the long term benefits. It seems to be short sighted to take a trout just after stocking from the hatchery instead of letting them grow a bit more. On the other hand...the other thread listed tons of water where they still stock the small fish and you can harvest them...still with pellets in their guts.

These regulations are NOT catch and release. Trying to twist the facts to imply that it is catch and release somehow...seems to be misleading.

These are put and take regulations. Pure and simple... Just improving the overall quality of the fishery for everyone to benefit. Totally everyone will benefit if one is not short sighted.

IMHO
100% agree with Sundancefisher. I think that jusfloatin is stirring the pot. Don't get me wrong I think it's good to voice a different opinion, but only if you have some what of an informed knowledge base. Jusfloatin what are your opinions based on? Do you have scientific facts to prove your claims (I have read your opinions on another board as well as on this one) or are you just throwing out a bunch of comments to stir the pot? I don't see what you think is wrong with having larger fish to catch in a few lakes in this province when there are so many more lakes in Alberta that are catch and keep. It's looks to me that you fish strickly to eat (just my opinion from reading your comments) which is fine as long as it's done with in the rules and regulations which I'm sure you do. But there are many lakes available to you that you can take a few fish home to have for dinner. K lakes will still be that way as well only your meal will be larger. There are only a handful of lakes in Alberta that are managed as trophy lakes, and what over 250 that are catch and keep. There are alot of anglers in Alberta that practice catch and release which is their right under the rules and regulations for the water body they are fishing. I am one of the catch and release fisherman, so I promise that when I go to K lakes and catch a 50 cm plus fish I will release it so that you can catch it to take it home.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-08-2011, 09:54 PM
Fisher_man#1's Avatar
Fisher_man#1 Fisher_man#1 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 236
Default

Well spoken, Im will you on the last part of your message.

I totally agree!!!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ C View Post
100% agree with Sundancefisher. I think that jusfloatin is stirring the pot. Don't get me wrong I think it's good to voice a different opinion, but only if you have some what of an informed knowledge base. Jusfloatin what are your opinions based on? Do you have scientific facts to prove your claims (I have read your opinions on another board as well as on this one) or are you just throwing out a bunch of comments to stir the pot? I don't see what you think is wrong with having larger fish to catch in a few lakes in this province when there are so many more lakes in Alberta that are catch and keep. It's looks to me that you fish strickly to eat (just my opinion from reading your comments) which is fine as long as it's done with in the rules and regulations which I'm sure you do. But there are many lakes available to you that you can take a few fish home to have for dinner. K lakes will still be that way as well only your meal will be larger. There are only a handful of lakes in Alberta that are managed as trophy lakes, and what over 250 that are catch and keep. There are alot of anglers in Alberta that practice catch and release which is their right under the rules and regulations for the water body they are fishing. I am one of the catch and release fisherman, so I promise that when I go to K lakes and catch a 50 cm plus fish I will release it so that you can catch it to take it home.
__________________
Fishing isnt just a way of life, it is life!!!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-09-2011, 12:23 AM
HunterDave's Avatar
HunterDave HunterDave is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 16,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ C View Post
100% agree with Sundancefisher. I think that jusfloatin is stirring the pot. Don't get me wrong I think it's good to voice a different opinion, but only if you have some what of an informed knowledge base. Jusfloatin what are your opinions based on? Do you have scientific facts to prove your claims (I have read your opinions on another board as well as on this one) or are you just throwing out a bunch of comments to stir the pot? I don't see what you think is wrong with having larger fish to catch in a few lakes in this province when there are so many more lakes in Alberta that are catch and keep. It's looks to me that you fish strickly to eat (just my opinion from reading your comments) which is fine as long as it's done with in the rules and regulations which I'm sure you do. But there are many lakes available to you that you can take a few fish home to have for dinner. K lakes will still be that way as well only your meal will be larger. There are only a handful of lakes in Alberta that are managed as trophy lakes, and what over 250 that are catch and keep. There are alot of anglers in Alberta that practice catch and release which is their right under the rules and regulations for the water body they are fishing. I am one of the catch and release fisherman, so I promise that when I go to K lakes and catch a 50 cm plus fish I will release it so that you can catch it to take it home.
Before you pro fellas start calling someone out that is against your proposal you'd better have a good look at what has been posted on this thread so far. I haven't seen many facts presented anywhere on this entire thread from anyone supporting this proposal. The facts that I've seen are either inaccurate, misleading or not facts at all and merely opinions.

For example: 94% of stocked fish are caught right away (not true)....fish are caught with pellets still in their belly (yeah, if you are there in September or October when they are stocked)........A quality fishery means being able to catch bigger fish easier (opinion)...... families and kids are going to like catching and keeping one bigger fish over several smaller ones (opinion)......etc, etc, etc. I could sit here all day and poke holes in a ton of stuff that has been posted but I'm not campaigning.

The FACT is that the Kan Lakes already hold the size of fish (and bigger) that are in the proposal. Changing the regs would just make it EASIER for grown ups to catch keeper sized fish and harder for kids to. Everything else is Fluff, Smoke and Mirrors. If you aren't up to the challenge of catching the bigger fish now then all that I can say is try harder.
__________________
“The whole problem with any issue is that fools and fanatics are always certain of their position, while wise people are full of doubt and questions.” Bertrand Russell
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-09-2011, 06:00 AM
GaryF GaryF is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 178
Default

Hunterdave, How many times a year do you fish at the K Lakes? What kind of gear do you fish them with?
__________________
Enjoying the peace and serenity of this wonderful sport!!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-09-2011, 07:09 AM
jusfloatin jusfloatin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ C View Post
100% agree with Sundancefisher. I think that jusfloatin is stirring the pot. Don't get me wrong I think it's good to voice a different opinion, but only if you have some what of an informed knowledge base. Jusfloatin what are your opinions based on? Do you have scientific facts to prove your claims (I have read your opinions on another board as well as on this one) or are you just throwing out a bunch of comments to stir the pot? I don't see what you think is wrong with having larger fish to catch in a few lakes in this province when there are so many more lakes in Alberta that are catch and keep. It's looks to me that you fish strickly to eat (just my opinion from reading your comments) which is fine as long as it's done with in the rules and regulations which I'm sure you do. But there are many lakes available to you that you can take a few fish home to have for dinner. K lakes will still be that way as well only your meal will be larger. There are only a handful of lakes in Alberta that are managed as trophy lakes, and what over 250 that are catch and keep. There are alot of anglers in Alberta that practice catch and release which is their right under the rules and regulations for the water body they are fishing. I am one of the catch and release fisherman, so I promise that when I go to K lakes and catch a 50 cm plus fish I will release it so that you can catch it to take it home.
First off let me assure you my intent is not to stir the pot as you put it but rather voice my concerns of what I feel is a lake truly deserving of intense discussions of any proposed changes.

I am very protective of this and the lower K as I have been fishing the upper/lower K on a regular bases for at least 10 years and in the last year alone you could see me and my all white runabout out there at least a couple dozen times.
Yes I do/will keep what I am legally allowed to.

You ask me for scientific facts to back up my claims are you meaning
where I say there will be a big influx of new people fishing there because of these changes (would it not change if it was to turn into the "Quality Fishery" you keep hearing)
where I say with them that there will be an increase of litter ( when in time has litter problems go down when more people come)
where I say that about it turning into a C&R for the first 3 years,( it will seem like that because there are 50+ out there but I would not expectto catch 1 every time you go out)



Sundance as for your plea about Correcting me.
I have called you on several of my posts where you have misquoted, read into or just posted untruths of where I have fished to how much I enjoyed it.
You have taken snippets from my comments and embellished them to create a totally different meaning to suit your case.
I have no problem discussing views but when I have to spend more time correcting your post of what I supposedly have posted it is time to withdraw from this thread.

The reason I decided to first post in this thread was because of my concern for a lake that I consider to be a hair away from paradise and what my thoughts of what would happen to the jewel if these changes were to come into effect.

If there were sufficient amount of officers out there checking possessions and size limits we would not need these changes to start with.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-09-2011, 10:11 AM
HunterDave's Avatar
HunterDave HunterDave is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 16,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryF View Post
Hunterdave, How many times a year do you fish at the K Lakes? What kind of gear do you fish them with?
None, but as long as my fishing license dollars are paying for the fish that are being put in there I figure that I have a right to comment on the proposed reg change. And, from a moral stand point I figure that I have an obligation to comment.

What's your point? That this should be considered a regional issue and if you are not from around there stay out of it? The last that I heard the Kan Lakes are available to all Albertans to fish not just the few that want to turn it into their own private fishery in their backyard.
__________________
“The whole problem with any issue is that fools and fanatics are always certain of their position, while wise people are full of doubt and questions.” Bertrand Russell
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-09-2011, 10:59 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Perchville
Posts: 13,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jusfloatin View Post
First off let me assure you my intent is not to stir the pot as you put it but rather voice my concerns of what I feel is a lake truly deserving of intense discussions of any proposed changes.

I am very protective of this and the lower K as I have been fishing the upper/lower K on a regular bases for at least 10 years and in the last year alone you could see me and my all white runabout out there at least a couple dozen times.
Yes I do/will keep what I am legally allowed to.

You ask me for scientific facts to back up my claims are you meaning
where I say there will be a big influx of new people fishing there because of these changes (would it not change if it was to turn into the "Quality Fishery" you keep hearing)
where I say with them that there will be an increase of litter ( when in time has litter problems go down when more people come)
where I say that about it turning into a C&R for the first 3 years,( it will seem like that because there are 50+ out there but I would not expectto catch 1 every time you go out)



Sundance as for your plea about Correcting me.
I have called you on several of my posts where you have misquoted, read into or just posted untruths of where I have fished to how much I enjoyed it.
You have taken snippets from my comments and embellished them to create a totally different meaning to suit your case.
I have no problem discussing views but when I have to spend more time correcting your post of what I supposedly have posted it is time to withdraw from this thread.

The reason I decided to first post in this thread was because of my concern for a lake that I consider to be a hair away from paradise and what my thoughts of what would happen to the jewel if these changes were to come into effect.

If there were sufficient amount of officers out there checking possessions and size limits we would not need these changes to start with.
jusfloatin

I too have provided information to you to corrected your assumptions which are the reasons you are negative on this idea. I am also never opposed to correcting myself and admitting when I erred. Hence may past responses on that. Still the facts do speak for themselves. Just the common sense aspect of this discussion is strongly for the new regs. Even many of your personal negatives show proof positive as to the intended outcome of the regulations.

Your concerns to date...

1

Environmental impact to lake: There is no impact on the lake environment as a result of these regs. I get the impression you spend a lot of time out there. Are you a park employee? If so...I am jealous. As these lakes have always had fish in them there is nothing special. As you already approve of the stocking program for 12 inchers that shows you don't have a problem with those introductions to the lake. Allowing nature to grow them bigger after stocking will not make them eat anything different...just make them bigger.

2

Line up to off load and load the boat: I still have not hear of a ton of boat usage out here. Most people will either fish from shore, in pontoon/belly boats versus boat launching. There is tons of shore line to fish from...loads of room to give everyone space...I have only ever fished it from shore or in my belly boat and had a great scenic day...albeit with not a lot of fish. That will soon change! If there is more people wanting to launch boats then all things being fair people will get along and launch their boats. If people help each other if will probably even go faster.

3

Parking issues: There are lots of access points and lots of parking. Parking has never been a problem here. Chances are the available parking will finally get used. You can also car pool to get out there.

4

The litter: With more fishermen around...more hikers and picicker's litter will get picked up. More traffic will mean better servicing by parks and probably better patrolling! With all due respect...I don't feel it is fair to single out and say fishermen will destroy the park with litter. I am part of the solution and not the problem and always take a bag with me to pack out not only my litter but others as well. Bait litter is usually the primary source which is not used here. Most litter I find is from picnickers and hikers and NOT fishermen. Still lead by example. A clean park stays clean way easier.

5

Traffic: Kind of redundant to parking as the two come hand in hand. Still remembering this is a long ways from Calgary still...just the closest suitable lake for implementing these regs...there will hopefully be more people. If the regs are positive to the fishery then we will have more people fishing there. Fishermen will drive in first thing and leave at dusk. Therefore not a lot of additional traffic. Plus we are not talking about thousands of people a day so you have to be careful not to exaggerate this a being a problem. Traffic will also be dispersed to the various access points. Increased fishermen will watch the water for pollution and also poaching. There is lots of parking that is often empty. If we get more fishermen coming then they can use some of those unfilled parking spots.

6

Dirty water: What is the motor law and how many motor boats do you see on the lake typically? I don't know many guys that would urinate out on the water in a tube. They mostly go to shore. I would say the reams of hikers probably add more urine that the occasional fisherman. Understanding also that there are reservoirs that flush lot of water out each year...I would not be concerned about the very low potential of build up. And actually...a little more nitrogen would help the bugs you are worried about. :-). This is also a very weak argument as I have seen many hikers stepping off the trail around the lake and not to smell a flower. Again...if looking at the arguments...this one is tough to agree with.

7. You also have stated you like fishing where others are not. That means you like it less crowded which is understandable. You are so far only applying arguments that are increased usage points which means that you agree these regulations will increase the numbers of people fishing. This and only this argument that you have provided so far is IMHO an obvious fact we can't ignore. I agree with you...there will be more people using the Park so it is true you will have more people fishing around you. Now the question is...is it 5 people a day more, 10 people a day more...or 25 people a day more. Remember it is still further from Calgary than the Bow River. I strongly suspect...while day trips will increase...people using the campgrounds will use the lake more for fishing also. While that will not increase traffic etc...it will increase on the water fishing time.

8. Lake will be catch and release for a while: This is only partially true... There are still trout from past stockings in the lakes and those will have a chance to continue to grow. Once nature has done its role and raise the trout up to 20 inches we can then harvest. There will be some available short term with an increasing percentage available long term. These regulations will also increase the available number of trout for catching and therefore increase catch rates over all. This was proved with the 7 times increase in catch rates between the last regulation change that effectively did the same thing being proposed now with the exception of going from 3 to 1 fish limit (still one 20 inch trout is twice the weight of 3 smaller ones) and 20 inch minimum size up from 12 inch.

9. Rampant poaching decimating the trout populations: Now I am reading your post above. It is hard to estimate how many early stocked trout are poached versus just heavily targeted on a daily basis after stocking. There is a mentality of greed amongst some people regardless of the commodity they are coveting. That being said when there is a yearly supply of trout to catch that people can catch with more confidence...then there will be less drive to take it before someone else does. There will be better sense of being a protector of the resource rather than an illegal exploiter. With an increase in anglers also comes an increase in eyes and cell phones. Poachers like to operate on a lake that no one else fishes much. Lake like Mt. Lorette get targeted hard after stocking (decimated within weeks) because it is the way the regulations have educated Albertans to act. We stock and they you kill as fast as possible. Little short, medium and long term value to the stocking practices save for the few first out to claim their share...

In summary...

Saying you want to stop improving the fishery because an extra number of fishermen make the trek to UKL and LKL to fish is IMHO a very weak argument. There are tons more hikers, picnickers and other users than fishermen. It is a multi use area which is different than the single use lake like Bullshead. To preach reduced usage of the park is somewhat selfish.http://www.tpr.alberta.ca/parks/kana...mitted_act.asp . How many additional fishermen do you think will fish these two large lakes on an average daily basis?

I guess the frustrating part of your arguments is that they are based upon weak assumptions and/or selfish reasons...versus the improvement of the overall fishery for the average future user. Therefore I know you can not be swayed on this topic due to the personal nature of your position on the topic.

I still believe you are free to take this position and I am sure you have voted on the poll accordingly. If there is any half truths or you take exception to what I have taken from your posts to date...please explain in detail as with anything...communication is key but without much facts in your posts we can only deduce your intended meaning. I understand your overall comment about wanting to protect this area...but sorry to tell you...you have no choice but to share it. It is public land and a public park.

Sun
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-09-2011, 11:03 AM
Tungsten, Tungsten, is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 160
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Before you pro fellas start calling someone out that is against your proposal you'd better have a good look at what has been posted on this thread so far. I haven't seen many facts presented anywhere on this entire thread from anyone supporting this proposal. The facts that I've seen are either inaccurate, misleading or not facts at all and merely opinions.

.
Bullshead reservoir,also dozens of BC lakes with the same regulations.

Go fish some of these lakes next season,I think then you'll understand.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-09-2011, 11:16 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Perchville
Posts: 13,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Before you pro fellas start calling someone out that is against your proposal you'd better have a good look at what has been posted on this thread so far. I haven't seen many facts presented anywhere on this entire thread from anyone supporting this proposal. The facts that I've seen are either inaccurate, misleading or not facts at all and merely opinions.

For example: 94% of stocked fish are caught right away (not true)....fish are caught with pellets still in their belly (yeah, if you are there in September or October when they are stocked)........A quality fishery means being able to catch bigger fish easier (opinion)...... families and kids are going to like catching and keeping one bigger fish over several smaller ones (opinion)......etc, etc, etc. I could sit here all day and poke holes in a ton of stuff that has been posted but I'm not campaigning.

The FACT is that the Kan Lakes already hold the size of fish (and bigger) that are in the proposal. Changing the regs would just make it EASIER for grown ups to catch keeper sized fish and harder for kids to. Everything else is Fluff, Smoke and Mirrors. If you aren't up to the challenge of catching the bigger fish now then all that I can say is try harder.
No one is hiding anything. 94% of all trout kept were from the same year stocking. That is the actual fact. I just misread it but corrected myself when it was pointed out. In debates...some times that happens. Is this number a negative to the equation? No...in fact it remains a strong positive for implementing the proposed regs. It means that a huge percentage of the fish get harvested immediately after stocking. That means they are extremely easy to catch and if we just let mother nature feed em for a while...we can harvest bigger fish while retaining much higher catch rates in the interim. If we think about your comment later that you are a tax payer and have a right to comment...purely from a cash flow management perspective...can you see the logic and value in a delayed harvest, increased recreational value and in the end an increase in the size of the harvestable cutthroat to someone wishing to retain one?

It is fact that many lakes people target immediately after stocking...with in two weeks...some smaller lakes are fished out. How is this value to your tax payer dollars? How is this value to recreational fishing...when these lakes are devoid of fish. The only thing UKL and LKL have going for them is shear size. That is also the benefit to meeting the requirements for a quality fishery in an area with extremely limited options for such a fishery.

Catching bigger fish easier is not an opinion but a stated fact from anyone that has fished a quality fishery like Bullshead. Those of us that have fished it can say without a doubt the fishing has improved. Many that argued some of the same concerns against these regs in Bullshead are enjoying such awesome fishing that the fight to switch it back would be impossible.

No one can argue that people like catching fish when fishing in UKL and LKL. So buy your argument against there being no facts...missed the key fact that when the 12 inch minimum size limit was instituted that the catch rates increased 7 times. So retaining fish in the lake longer...delaying harvest and letting mother nature grow them to 20 inches will only increase catch rates... I can not see the argument working that says increasing the numbers of fish in the lake would decrease catch rates.

The fact is that the lake CAN hold bigger fish and does grow a few...but delaying harvest would allow the minimum size to increase just as the 12 inch rule accomplished at the time. That would mean an increasingly larger number of bigger cutts. This is one of the reasons for the lakes meeting the requirements for a quality fishery.

For someone that is not campaigning...you are doing a good job of trying.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-09-2011, 11:22 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Perchville
Posts: 13,126
Default

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

for those of you that don't want to switch over the main debate thread.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-09-2011, 11:31 AM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tungsten, View Post
Bullshead reservoir,also dozens of BC lakes with the same regulations.

Go fish some of these lakes next season,I think then you'll understand.
the greatest rainbowtrout lake in B.C. is not managed under these regulations.


Go fish this lake NOW,I think then you'll understand.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-09-2011, 11:36 AM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,655
Default

i would post a link from another site that posted some real facts but it was deleted and refreshed i see.......sad when some peeps get special needs help.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-09-2011, 11:44 AM
steelhead steelhead is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: south
Posts: 308
Default

I disagree strongly with these regulations as.....




.....The cheaper you make it for the SRD to manage these lakes, ie. less stocking, more rules to manage, you are also taking money out of the system making a lower budget for next year. Nice to come up with quality lakes, but if the budget keeps getting slashed (as its at its breaking point now) and the gov reduces the budget to equal its previous expenditures, these quality options will degrade all other fisheries and enforcement spending.

You all want quality fisheries???


How about a petition to get more money for enforcement and larger stocking quotas for many species, not just trout. You will see bigger fish that way also. Get moe people fishing walleyes and there will be less catch and bonkers at your favorite LOL, quality fishery. If trout are the easiest fish to catch in this province, Make the other species easier and more plentiful to catch and draw people away from the trout. That equals quality fishery a hundred fold


Your options take money, not save money and will harm all our fisheries.. I disagree with that and will vote no.


If you cant get alot of big rainbows and larger fish out of K lakes, yer not getting your fly lines down deep enough. Your quality fish are already in there, but with it being such a big and deep lake, your fishing tactics may not help you get them!


Petition for more spending on enforcement and dollars. Richest province in Canada and it has the poorest track record for its fishing and conservation enforcement. Then the bigger fish will come. It works everywhere else, but here. All other provinces actually, but here. I guess no one here ever looks at what other provinces do, except BC. they have what they have from big spending and enforcement.


your focus is wrong for everything


STEELHEAD
__________________
official leader of the internet forum opposition party.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-09-2011, 11:53 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Perchville
Posts: 13,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelhead View Post
I disagree strongly with these regulations as.....




.....The cheaper you make it for the SRD to manage these lakes, ie. less stocking, more rules to manage, you are also taking money out of the system making a lower budget for next year. Nice to come up with quality lakes, but if the budget keeps getting slashed (as its at its breaking point now) and the gov reduces the budget to equal its previous expenditures, these quality options will degrade all other fisheries and enforcement spending.

You all want quality fisheries???


How about a petition to get more money for enforcement and larger stocking quotas for many species, not just trout. You will see bigger fish that way also. Get moe people fishing walleyes and there will be less catch and bonkers at your favorite LOL, quality fishery. If trout are the easiest fish to catch in this province, Make the other species easier and more plentiful to catch and draw people away from the trout. That equals quality fishery a hundred fold


Your options take money, not save money and will harm all our fisheries.. I disagree with that and will vote no.


If you cant get alot of big rainbows and larger fish out of K lakes, yer not getting your fly lines down deep enough. Your quality fish are already in there, but with it being such a big and deep lake, your fishing tactics may not help you get them!


Petition for more spending on enforcement and dollars. Richest province in Canada and it has the poorest track record for its fishing and conservation enforcement. Then the bigger fish will come. It works everywhere else, but here. All other provinces actually, but here. I guess no one here ever looks at what other provinces do, except BC. they have what they have from big spending and enforcement.


your focus is wrong for everything


STEELHEAD


Your budget question is hard to know. Can you provide information that shows that when Bullshead implemented the new rules and attracted a huge fishermen following that somehow the system was financially harmed. Please provide some facts as if true I will be emailing my MLA... Otherwise...it is just a theory. I remember the opposite...after regs came into being...enforcement increased and not targeted enforcement still prevails but tons of eyes are keeping those greedy people more honest.

I wholeheartedly agree that we need more money for enforcement but also regional and local fish population studies.

I disagree that we need to stocking more...stocking implies an over harvest and an unsustainable fishery. We can not bandaid bad fisheries management through stocking. Stocking as a put and take trout resource has been applied for years and is an expected part of the system. Stocking to introduce stock for the first time (such as walleye in a lake or trout from the Bow into the Red Deer) is an applied management technique. Allowing over harvest of a natural walleye or pike lake population with the mindset to stock our way out of a problem... I am not so enamored with.

Your assumption that there are loads of big fish in the lakes already is not shown in gill netting data. There was not a large number caught in UKL so your assumption is wrong. There were only 50 rainbows measured in the LKL that were large. The lakes show they can grow them big...but harvest is quick.

Your comment that everything can be fixed...including bigger fish through enforcement...does not hold water IMHO. Catching a few poachers...while helpful is far from a critical piece of the problem. Still don't get me wrong...start a petition demanding more money spend on enforcement through an INCREASE to the budget to accommodate it and I am signing!

Sun
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 -7. The time now is 12:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.