![]() |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Ok, here's another question HunterDave: You go to your bank and ask to take out $1000 from your account to buy some hunting gear that you've been looking at. The bank manager comes out and says to you, "If you wait and come back in 3 year, I will guarantee that your $1000 will grow to $3000 which you can then take out." Which do you take? Common sense would say to keep the money in there if you're getting that type of return. By delaying the harvest of fish, we're all getting a huge return. One 18" fish is larger than three 10" and much more fun to catch. No? Keeping 5 (or even 3) every time you go fishing seems really selfish to me. I'll keep one small-medium fish to eat but I won't keep a big one if I catch it. I don't because of the respect I have for the fish; that it was able to get big despite the fishing pressure, and because of the respect I have for the other fishermen that will be fishing there next. If I bonk that big fish, that's the end of the story, but if I release it, someone else can catch it again and the story continues. If I bonk all of the 5 fish I am allowed, that is 5 fewer fish that could become bigger fish. Again, it seems selfish. I don't have the heart to do it and it makes my stomach churn when I see someone else do it because, to me, it's showing a lack of respect for the resource we have and a lack of respect to all of the other fishermen as well. In New Zealand, there was a great sign at one of the rivers that said something to the effect, "Please, take only what you need so the resource will be here for everyone to enjoy." That was the only regulation on the stream; keep whatever you want, just no more than you need. I wondered how long there would still be fish in that stream if we tried that in Alberta... I thought maybe a week.:sign0176: If all of us are bonking all of the fish we can and all of the big fish we can, we end up getting exactly what we've got = a fishery where 18" fish seems like monsters and SRD stocking 30,000 fish into a lake every year. Or am I the crazy one? Discuss...... (As a side note, I've been really enjoying this discussion, and besides me calling HunterDave's ideas "ludicrous" I think it's been a good, civil discussion with many good points on both sides:)) Cheers. |
Quote:
I fly fish mostly creeks and rivers years ago I would never see a person all day, now its one after another. But it seems to me fly fisher men are a different breed, in fact all I know are all C & R, I am and all my buddys that come from the US to fly fish here in Alberta are. Sometimes I will catch 30 fish in a day, and my son as well but bring home nothing. Do I feel cheated? Nope. |
Quote:
We're also both of the sort of fisherman who (as you said) "love the thrill of the chase" and when we don't catch, well it sure was beautiful out there today eh? You could break down this thread into almost two category of fisherfolk,, ones wanting an instant gratification and those just fine with being on the water. I've had fishermen asking if they could have the fish I'm releasing, illegal for one start and then I'm wondering why they are fishing at all? (rhet) Obviously not for the charm of experiencing what a lot of people around the world don't have, an opportunity to be in some spectacular nature at the drop of a hat and that includes the Prairies. Back to the dinkers,,, in mid-summer we go knowing that we are going to get nothing but pan-frys and we have a hibatchi ready to fry a few. My Dad can't hike up Sandy McNab anymore, even rocky shores are a major obstacle for him now,, so the dinker lakes are, if you notice, lined with seniors and kids. We reminice on fishing days gone by and the kids are skipping rocks by mid-afternoon, and we get out of the city. |
Quote:
I hope, Gustav, that you think I was insinuating that I want all put and take lakes gone. NO way - I have kids, nieces/nephews; In fact I have alot of friends and family who aren't regular anglers whom I take down to these types of lakes to catch some fish/expose them to angling/nature...etc. I just don't fish these lakes for myself as catching these types of fish brings me no enjoyment. But, I do utilize these lakes for my above reasons, and; therefore, am grateful for these dinker lakes as well. The main issue here is "the need to create some diversity in our stocking program in order to cater to all Albertans". I realize you can't please everyone, but I do know that we could make some changes to please more than just the current "putandtake majority". Again, great discussion everyone. I like this one!! |
Quote:
There is a wide array of why people fish; I'm from the side that I'm happy to still get to fish (with my Dad and he with his Grandkids) or snooze on a riverbank all the live long day. If he was sprite he could easily guide people on where the big ones are but those spots will go to the grave with him. His answers are the same "They're out there, you'll find them!" We were talking last night about fish management and we always come round to coldwater lakes/streams and the growth rate of those fish to fish in warmer lakes/streams. It's an important issue especially with broad-ranging regulations. I'm opposed to heli-charters into mountaintop lakes,,, the accessibility or lack thereof is the conservation method. But that's a whole nother thread. |
Quote:
To me, it make sense that if you only keep the large fish with the fishing pressure in Alberta (anglers to bodies of water) you are going to eventually decimate your fishing waters! This is not rocket dentistry here. :confused0024: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Ya see you don't understand the concept. You go out once and catch five fish to eat and when you have eaten them you go out and catch five more. Unethical? If you go out fishing one time and keep 5 smaller fish to eat how many more fish are you taking out of the lake by going 5 times and keeping one fish? :confused: Unless of course you are thinking about someone that disregards the possession limits in the regs which I don't do. :innocent: I think that the sign in New Zealand is good and I have the same mentality. From a very early age I was taught to only "take what you need and leave the rest". That is the moral that I have lived by my entire life whether it is hunting or fishing. Why take more than you need, possession limits aside? So you can kill the animal/fish and let it freezer burn in your freezer? I'll even take it one step farther in that I was taught to keep the smaller "eatin' sized fish and release the larger "breeding" sized fish. Make sense? :huh: And just cuz the fish can't breed in a particular body of water doesn't make it right IMHO. Now stop letting your imagination run wild on you and stop putting words in my mouth. :2mo5pow: :lol: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Where exactly are you catching those 30 fish per day? I'll take 5 eater sized please! I don't want any big ones cuz they don't taste as good. :sHa_sarcasticlol: |
Quote:
Too bad...I liked you better when I thought you were crazy. :) Cheers. |
Quote:
Okay, hunting is my forte but fishing, trapping, camping, etc are all part of the enjoyment that I have of the outdoors. Here's how I see this whole "Quality" fishery issue from a hunting perspective: For me, creating a "quality" fishery in a lake is similar to having canned hunts where only big animals are kept in SRD funded fenced areas. In the case of fish, the shoreline would be the fence. You could scatter these game farms around the cities in order to satisfy the shooters that wanted to shoot "easy to shoot" big game animals with minimal effort. :) I haven't quite figured out the C&R part yet but here's what I'm thinking....In order to sustain a "quality" shootery, the same rules as C&R would need to be applied. Tranquilizer guns would need to be used in order to give serious shooters an opportunity to get a picture with their animal. They could get replicas made from the photo/measurements and put it in their living room. This should satisfy everyone that would be happy with shooting a big animal but shoot and release only (S&R) only. :happy0034: As for the non S&R shooters (let's call them hunters) that would like to keep one or more animals to eat, then they would have to go to any of the crown land areas, or private property that they own or have permission to hunt on. These areas are not limited to only shooting smaller animals and there is an opportunity for hunters to shoot a big animal too (just not as easy). :mad0100: There would be another alternative to having SRD funded game farms though and it would be a cheaper option. Select and designate WMU's, or parts of them, in close proximity to cities and put size restrictions on the animals that you are allowed to shoot. Let's say deer for example. You'd only be able to shoot bucks with 5x5 or bigger antlers in these areas. This way, after a few years, the bucks would have the chance to grow bigger and there would always be a good supply of 5x5 or bigger deer to shoot with the chance of bagging a 6x6 whopper.:sign0068: So ya see, I have it all figured out. :acigar: From a hunting perspective "quality" fisheries = canned hunts. ;) |
Quote:
Still...bringing a perch to a simple discussion about trout...not unusual for you:angry3:. Also you missed the previous many posts around that I would love to find this oil company sponsored trip you keep ranting about:snapoutofit:. In fact the trips I organize are 100% funded by the individual going. Any of you reading this could come on the exact same trip for the exact same price. I know you have a festering boil in your belly that anyone in the oil patch is elitist...problem with your theory is 145500 people work their butts off in the Alberta oil patch in some fashion or another. Spin off jobs increase that dramatically. So...please cancel your anger with common sense...stick to the interesting debates...and hey...if you don't like the debate...exercise your right to not click on the link...:sHa_sarcasticlol: |
Meat of the debate shows us what?
What this shows us is that there is a wealth of opinions and desires amongst our fine fishing brothers and sisters. If we continue to use the family analogy...then we should be considering the finer points of sharing and compromise. That means we are not making every pond catch and release, not making every pond 5 - 9 inchers a day, not making every pond 1 under 18 inches etc.
There is a market for many different fishery types and no one group should have a monopoly nor live in the dark ages. While many people obviously like to catch something...anything...and as such want as many fish in the barrel in which to enjoy a day of hopefully catching...others are fine with stocking once or twice a year and harvesting the lake out within weeks thereof. To each there own and I certainly would not support changing every lake to only one management style/type...simply because to be fair not everyone wants what I want. I believe some paranoia exists in which people this is a plot to make everything catch and release. That is not possible as that user group would not be happy. The reason some lakes (only a few so far) have been made into a quality lake and public out cry was fairly week was because Bullshead proved it works and because there are so many options to fish put and take lakes that they just don't have the energy to fight a fair compromise...not to mention that not all lakes are suitable for that regulation. So in the end...let's fight less and just fish in the other person's waders for a while. Is compromise and sharing a bad thing? Cheers Sun |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Good post....i agree. Im all for it as long as it doesnt become a blanket policy for alot of lakes. |
Quote:
28 or 23 % want 3 or 5 fish to harvest at a shot. 94 or 77% want 1 or fewer with 53 or 43% wanting no harvest at all. I am in fact amazed at this poll...I would of expected a higher number of people wanting to concentrate on maximizing harvest versus maximizing recreational value of just "catching" more fish. I think one still needs to look at the question and extrapolate that people are being greedy in their selection of answer insofar as "their favorite lake" is concerned. If someone has easy or regular access to a lake...you are more likely to be protective of the fishery and your personal opportunity to "catch" fish. If the question was...if you were just passing by on holidays and found a nice lake which you are unlikely to fish ever again...would you want to...harvest 5, 3, 1 or none. I suspect the answer may swing to an increased harvest since the individual would not have any personal connection to the lake nor any concern about the lake being fished out as they would likely not fish it again. Interesting mix of sociology and fisheries management. My analysis is purely a guess on my part. |
Quality over Quantity in a better selection of our ponds, please.
Great locations for this type of management: Dolberg, Peanut, Star, Miller, Sauer, Carson, Dollar, Spring (Spirit River and Edmonton), Ashland Dam, Kinky, Dickson Dam, Mary Gregg, Phyllis, Vegreville pond, Strubel, Crimson, Goldeye, Beauvais, Police Outpost, Chain, Tyrell, Blood indian, Beaver Mines. Great water all capable of producing 30+ inchers. Feel free to add to the list. |
Quote:
Ya wouldn't like fishing there anyhow. Possession limit is 2. Bait ban. And ya gotta fly fish. I do have a fellow forum member who is going to join me this summer, but he ain't tellin nothing either:sHa_sarcasticlol: But he is a C & R guy too.:acigar: Dang we are going to have alot of fly fisherman in our camp this year. Fishing bout 10-15 different rivers and streams.:sHa_shakeshout: |
Quote:
As far as I know, nearly all of the SRD staff were born in Alberta. If you are pointing @ me - poor choice - family was in Alberta before it was Alberta. Don |
I was not referring to SRD staff or to yourself (so much meaning is lost when posting on the net), just pointing a finger at a percentage of a certain demographic that has shown little respect for the fishery in Alberta. With that said I realize their are others to blame as well but the population explosion in the NE has really killed quality fisheries we once had. We are not blessed with the Grand Banks in Alberta, oh wait that fishery went to hell too. Slightly inflammatory remarks I realize but I call em as I see em'. It's about respect for the land on which you live, that seems to elude a lot of folk.
Take, Take, Take before it's all gone is a pretty sad excuse for living irresponsibly. |
Quote:
That's what I'm talking about. The general attitude of keeping the larger fish over the smaller eatin' size if you want something to eat. |
The problem with taking the smaller fish is that essentially none are left to get over 20". Commonly there are very few fish over 16" in lakes with a 5 fish/no size limit. You can see it at Bullshead. Any fish approaching 20" is bonked on the head and removed. No matter what the legal size limit is, a huge majority of the fish that reach that size are removed. The number of fish that escape the freezer to remain as "quality" trout is very low.
|
Quote:
The anglers, like me or people with kids, that like to go out and catch some smaller fish to keep and eat are happy and the trophy anglers that just want to catch a big fish to take a picture of should be happy. Everyone wins and no one has to give up anything! :sHa_shakeshout: The only people that I can see as not being happy are the anglers that want easy to catch and keep big fish. To them I say.....Too bad! :tongue2: If you want easy then join the Marines and if you want to eat big fish then go to the fish market! Smaller sized fish taste better anyway! :) I know that I'm joking around a bit and my thinking is totally outside the box from what goes on in Alberta right now, but, really, does any of what I'm posting make sense to anyone? :confused0024: It's just an idea but great plans are developed from the smallest of ideas. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Fish would be cropped off before they ever reach 16". I was talking to one of the fish cops or whatever he was, at Kinky lake in Hinton. They netted the lake a couple of times this spring and did some mark/recapture study and the biggest fish they caught in their nets was 16.3 inches. He said that one was unfortunately an anomaly. So that is very evident proof that your theory just wont work. By the time these fish reach 14", duffy has already been out to the lake to crop them off. By the way, Kinky Lake has not winterkilled for the last 3 or 4 years (at least 3). So, would someone like me (and I'm not the only one) who wants to feel a quality fish on the end of my line go to a lake and fish for the half dozen or so "anomaly" fish?? Probably not. We just want some diversity, we don't want to eliminate all put and take 5 fish limit lakes. |
Quote:
If it's only done in a few lakes I don't understand why there is such an outcry over the suggestion of changing regulations on those lakes. There will still be many, many lakes that are unchanged. |
Jasper
As a side note...as much as I disagree with the national park's fishing regs and management....they have some really good quality trout fishing....so maybe there is something to say for a 2 fish any size limit.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.