Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandonkop
I agree, but have to remember the pike limit back then was 10 any size, walleye limit 3 over 15 inches. What would our fisheries look like today with regulations like the rest of North America with selective slot size harvests? Allowing some fish to get to the spawning size and then larger fish to stay in the fishery. Look at Calling lake. Has been open as the so called experimental lake the way I see it. Still open for retention with actually quite a large slot. Not sure why they wont adapt this strategy to more water bodies to reduce biomass and improve quality. Sure there will be less walleye, but there would be more minnows, perch, pike and fatter walleye that have more successful spawning. It's hard to get behind biologists that use bad science and sustainability numbers that are not on par with the rest of the country. The set benchmark may be unattainable.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
|
The answer is that Alberta is not like other places. Drawing comparisons to other places based on assumptions that aren't tested is bad science - its actually not science at all. The pressure here is extremely high. So high, that studies on slot limits showed that too few fish escaped harvest slots to be sustainable. Harvest-slot limits work only when enough fish make it through to be protected again, so either open-access pressure has to be low enough or some other way to control harvest or pressure has to be used (e.g. tags - which are really a slot-limit approach with limited participation). There is info on this as well:
https://albertaep.wordpress.com/2017...ience-of-fish/
https://albertaep.wordpress.com/2017...r-fishin-hole/
The thinking that reducing walleye will make more pike and perch is not sound, as that's based on an untested assumption that pike and perch are not being limited by other factors, such as fishing mortality or even habitat changes.
It's easy to make assumptions. It takes a lot of work to turn assumptions into hypotheses and then test them in a properly designed study.
There seems to be a view that the bios really don't want to allow fish harvest and are doing what they can to prevent it, like some kind of conspiracy. I just don't buy that. Every bio I've asked tells me they see fish harvest as a sign that they've been successful in either recovering or maintaining fisheries.
The bios of today are well-trained. They want to make fisheries better. I support them.