[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Doc

Just to clear things up a bit on Muir. It was never designed as a quality fishery as SRD defines it. Muir was before the quality fisheries agenda the gov't came up with. Muir was designed to have high catch rates of larger than average trout than most put and take fisheries with the chance of catching a trophy. SRD seems to want the trout to grow up to 50cm but as long as they are bigger than 9 inches they appear to be content. I have fished Muir Lake from May to Oct since we've started the project and although the lake produces larger trout on average than most of the put and take lakes it's not near good enough as I know what it could possibly be producing with the right management and true trophy's are not being caught. If, after stocking, there is enough biomass in a quality lake to produce a majority of 50cm trout with the chance at a real trophy then I would be happy with that. If not, then studies are needed to determine how many trout should be stocked to achieve this goal. Not hearing or seeing many studies done and if there are, we're not seeing a lot of reactive measures being taken by those in charge to improve the quality and enhance the fisheries (at least not in the Edmonton area). So what we're left with is a lot of 2lb to 4lb trout but no 10lb trout like we want. Is that better than spending a day catching a zillion dinks? You betcha but why should we settle for mediocre when we can have great.



Why not 30%? How about 40%? Even at 40%, you still have 60% of your mediocre lakes. I want to see one quality lake with browns and one with cutties near Edmonton as well. While we're at it let's change Chickakoo to a quality lake and we'll have lunker brookies too. Still lots of the lakes around Edmonton that have dinks in it for those that want the little fish. Why should I have to drive three hours to find a decent fishery when I can have several in my backyard? Why just be content with Muir? Apparently you aren't just content with Morinville res. for catching the tiddlers. Why should my licensing fees go to stocking 40,000 trout in a fisheries that I have no interest in fishing? The lakes I purpose are cheaper to stock. And to answer your question, Muir does work by SRD's definition but not by mine (although it's still the best lake within two hours of Edmonton). You can see how well it works when you can't find a parking spot on a Sat morning. Guess we just have to build more (and better) so all the minority quality wanters can find a place to park.

*Note: A lot of tongue in cheek here mixed with honesty.

So, in summary, the "Quality" fishery at Muir hasn't worked.

Your post swayed me more towards having more "quality" fisheries in and immediately around the city of Edmonton though. The way that I figure it is if a few more "quality" fisheries were created then all of the lazy azzed anglers from the city wanting to catch big, easy to catch trout would stay in Edmonton. Then, there'd be fewer anglers at all of the harder to get to lakes. In turn the quality of fishing will improve because we wouldn't have to worry about the city guys coming out and keeping all of the big fish instead of the smaller eatin sized ones!

Okay......what if SRD could be talked into digging several dugouts in and around Edmonton and filling them with fish? Would that work for you?

To answer your question about having 30% or 40% of our lakes turned into "quality" fisheries............SRD wouldn't do that for such a small percentage of anglers that want them. If you believe that support for "quality" fisheries is that high then you need to get out more and talk with Joe the average angler.