If you could make the walleye regs?
 

If it was up to you, what would you propose as a walleye limit in Alberta? Personnally, I’d say 2 per day under 16”, and 2 in possession. That at we would be protecting the spawners, and still have a feed of fresh fish.

Agree with leaving the big ones to reproduce. Maybe a slot size 15 to 20" (38-50 cm). Even 1 a day would be better than this stupid tag system. Makes it so I don't even bother for walleye in alberta. Just go visit relatives in sasky instead.

Are the Walleye populations THAT dismal in Alberta?

I've never fished for them in Alberta, but I've caught hundreds and hundreds of them in Sask MB and Ontario.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the deal?

If you could
 

We are the only province in Canada, or the US for that matter, that targets the spawner size fish for retention.

we are also one of the largest provinces in size but we have only 800 lakes with fishable populations for about 300,000 fishers. If it was up to me I would support zero retention for all fish say 150 km's north of Hwy. 16 all the way south to Montana.

Then we would soon have crashed walleye fisheries. Fish wont make it to spawning size.



This is why Im glad it is not up to the fisherman.:(:argue2:



On the other hand you can eat all the carp you want, no limits.:)

I would be happy to see a limit of some sort like a slot size etc... but the biggest issue is the lack of stocking. If we have a limit the lakes would be fished out in a couple years time. We would need a real aggressive stocking program to allow for open limits on walleye in most lakes.

As a catch and release guy, I am ok with the way it is now. I simply like the sport and I don't have to eat them.

Leave it up to the fishermen and it won't be long, we'll be complaining about "where are all the fish"?

Look how long it took Pine Coulee Reservoir to get fished out when given a green light..... Five walleye a day per fisherman.

I witnessed our new Canadians pull up with 4-6 guys in the vehicle. Fishing rod in one hand and a 5 gallon paint pail in the other and haul in hand over fist a lot more that 5.....

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

Sounds alot like my Dad and my Grandfather generation when limits of 30 perch were allowed. Its not just " New Canadians". My Dad's generation and Grandfathers generation took care of things over the years in the same light.

It was actually a limit of 3...LOL

Also, I have heard many times that PCR was netted before the new limits were implemented and walleye were relocated else where.....

If you could
 

You make an excellent point huntsfurfish. I tend to rethink my views on this one. Not being able to keep any walleye is a hell of a lot better than having no walleye at all. If you want to eat fish, go to the fish market. It would be a lot cheaper to do it that way.

If you could
 

I remember when I was a kid, there was no limit on perch. Walleye and pike were 10 each per day. Ice fisherman used to fish Moose Lake in the late winter, and take out pails of perch day after day back then.

It's bad enough already that will crash it completely. 0 retention on all southern alberta walleye fisheries and then institute a tag system once fish are thriving. We know this works

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Before this one goes completely off the rails, i'll give my 2 cents.

I don't honestly have a strong opinion either way on the subject, but I will say this:

Myself as well as a lot of my fishing buddies / people in facebook groups all agree they are catching the biggest walleye they can remember the last 2 years.

Maybe something is working with the current regs?

On a few lakes and rivers I wont mention (within 2.5 hours of edmonton), you can consistently catch 30" walleye if you know what you're doing.

Obviously its not perfect but its definitely better than when the population was on the brink.

Could certain lakes use more harvest? Sure. Could some use less? Perhaps. More studies need to be done and without any money put forward by the province the powers that be have to resort to annoying things like tags etc etc.

Its impossible to please everyone in a province like alberta due to the pressure vs the amount of water available, but they are doing pretty OK with Walleye management I would have to say.

Where did you hear that?

I'd be amazed if that was true...

Agreed 100% on both points.

However if it were up to me I'd...
- continued C&R for collapsed populations
- province wide slot limit of 1 between 45cm-to-46cm for non-collapsed populations
- continued draws opportunities for population management on lakes with overabundant populations.
- would need to do something similar to the above for pike as well.

Frustration with 20 year "drought"
 

In the St. Paul area lakes have been closed as long as 20 years, yet Bios still think the lake is collapsed for walleye? How many generations of fish are needed before a lake can be opened on any basis? According to the Bios, the lakes up there can never be opened. That is the obvious conclusion from their actions.

The Wild Rose MLA for the area did an open house last year and invited the bios to explain themselves. MANY people asked the same question.

Either there were no walleye in the lakes to start with, or some other group was removing all the walleye so the sport fishing closure was irrelevant.

If some other group is removing all the walleye, then what difference will it make if the sport fishermen be allowed to harvest as well?

As such, the reality that there is some other group that continually removes the walleye from these closed lakes means that the resource depletion is occurring regardless of sport fishing regulation, making such sport fishing closures meaningless.

In other words, after 100 years of sport fishing closure on these lakes, there still will be no walleye.

If that is the case, what difference will it make to allow harvest by sport fishermen on these lakes that have been closed for 20 years?

Simply put, the slot size system in Calling Lake is a shining example of allowing initial recruitment, and for the fish that make it past the slot size, continued recruitment. This will spread the sport fishing pressure across more water bodies, and reduce the catch and release hooking mortality that is killing far more fish than any retention of fish ever did.

Drewski

Well said Drewski.

I think slot sizes could work wonders on some of the lakes with "stunted" populations.

Pigeon Lake has not sold all of its tags since they came out with the damn things, and the fish will become stunted.

How about lets open a slot of 1 fish a day from 40 to 50 CM? You would be catching 60+ CM walleye with regularity in that lake within a few years. It would be like Calling Lake except an hour from the city. I bet with a lower (but better quality) population, you would start catching those nice 10+ pound pike that used to be normal in Pigeon.

That is just one example but the logic is sound IMO.

We don't really know for sure. It was always thought that each individual waterbody required an actual inventory to quantify age classes and recruitment prior to setting any slot sizes or limits. AFIK that has never been done in Alberta. Some Lakes ( three, I think-Baptiste,S Buck and Moose) were electro-fished in the late 80's to determine just that but the study was never completed. At that time, Alberta had only 110 Lakes that supported viable Walleye populations. I don't think that has changed much, especially with the Cold Lake hatchery being shut down many years ago. The Alberta Walleye Fishery has been in a bad state of neglect for more than three decades now and likely won't get any better the way things are going.

Salavee,

Fisheries does index netting on many lakes using numerous sets at different locations. The nets are special in that the mesh size goes from very small to large, allowing an inventory of many different species and age classes.

This used to be done in the fall but there was a shift to doing the netting in August. The data is for many many years on a number of lakes.

From that, age classes can be represented, and growth rates can be determined.

Regardless of these efforts, Fisheries still fails or refuses to recognize that some lakes can take fishing pressure for walleye, and cuts the recreational users out of the ongoing harvest from the non regulated crowd.

On Lac La Biche, I understand that there were over 100 Metis and FN netters issued permits and at it at various times last winter. The rest of us just sat back in amazement that individual netters must be eating morning, noon, and night, to consume all the fish that some of them caught.

These users have gone far beyond subsistence use in their consumption, and Fisheries has very little respect for the rest of us who paid the tax dollars to rehabilitate Lac La Biche in the first place.

Is there one good reason to cut the rest of us out of enjoyment and use of the resource, where it makes no difference to the population that is getting hammered by the non regulated crowd?

The reality is that the more fish that are in the lake the more the non regulated group will take, as their need is seemingly endless.

Drewski

:thinking-006: Hmmm, if you can keep smaller walleyes in The rest of Canada, how do those provinces still have fish that reproduce ?? You can’t catch all the fish, all the time !!:snapoutofit:

Thats easy, much less fish here, water too.

Had 16" size limit here before and fisheries crashed. Few fish got to spawn. I really do not want to see that again.

So quite simple really.

I really think the simple answer is to stock walleyes in waters that can sustain a healthy population, instead of using fisheries $ on things not related to fishing.

??? bolded please explain.:thinking-006:

As for stocking it can maybe help a bit. But will not create the food source and answer to the problem that so many are looking for. Walleye are slow growing and take about 5 years to spawn.

If you are looking for put and take, then trout is clearly much better suited.

Sask stocked about 15 mil walleye last year. It seems they may be doing something right with their fisheries..........

Compared to Alberta, Sask has been doing something right while at the same time continuing to effectively manage more than 10 times the number of waterbodies.
I think we dropped the ball big time when we shut down the hatchery but on the other hand, having the water sure helps. We can't have it all.

Agreed, That has been a problem as far back as I can recall. With the additional demand from the increasing recreational fishery, the issue has compounded to the point where only one user group can be controlled. The hammer has fallen right across the board when it comes to managing our Wildlife resources. Almost impossible to rectify at this point..as I see it anyway.

Agreed!

Another growing problem is non-compliance with regulations. I have been walleye fishing on Pigeon, South Buck, Baptiste, Calling, Lac St. Anne and each time I have seen cabin owners out fishing (without tags) and keeping everything they catch. I speak up to most of them when I see them catching and keeping illegal fish... this is usually when they motor away back to their cabin. I have followed a few at a distance to see where they call home. A phone call to the authorities with little to no action so I will say I am disheartened at the least with walleye rules that only a few of us ethical sportsman seem to adhere to.

I'd like to be able to keep a walleye in Crawling Valley reservoir, whether by a daily limit or tag system. You'd think that when you can catch 20+ fish a day using Spartan methods, a retention of one wouldn't be devastating. With that said, I do not have a background in biology, and certainly defer to those that do.

Pinelakeperch,

The issue is not a background in biology for the decision makers, it is their ideology on the use of the resource.

Alot of the Fisheries ideology is driven by a belief that there is a crisis that is the Recreational Anglers' fault. If that was so, 20 years of recreational closures in the St. Paul Area would have fish walking on land to escape the overcrowding in the lakes!

Instead, one user group is being excluded on the philosophy that the Recreational Anglers should not be fishing in the first place, because the resource should be the exclusive domain of some other more privileged user group? The resource belongs to us all, but Fisheries thinks that excluding the Recreational Anglers will balance a problem that is increasing from the non regulated users.

Nothing that the Recreational Anglers will ever do can compare to the constant non regulated netting in the spawning areas, for example. Netting, by its very nature, removes the biggest fish, with the greatest recruitment potential. Yet this problem is easily justification for a Conservation Closure to all user groups, if Fisheries wishes to pull on its big boy pants for a change, and take a stand against this indiscriminate netting problem on lakes like Lac La Biche.

As such, what is needed is a change in philosophy recognizing the right of use by all groups, with a slot size that spreads fishing pressure across many water bodies. Recruitment both before a fish reaches the slot size ensures replacement. Release after the fish grows beyond the slot size ensures that trophy potential and genetics is preserved. Netting does not do either.

So for your belief that the Biologists have some mystical knowledge that must be deferred to: about science perhaps, but about a philosophical approach that respects the rights of all user groups, no.

Drewski