Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave
SRD defines a "quality" trout fishery as a stocked trout water body with regulations for a large minimum size or C&R regulations aimed at regularly providing larger fish (50 cm or larger). They don't use the weight of the fish.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave
30%!  I see that you are from Edmonton. Is there not a "quality" fishery called Muir Lake right outside of town? Why is there a requirement for 30 more lakes (assuming that there are 100 lakes) just like that one within a 200 mile radius of Edmonton when you can already go to Muir for your photo op? Maybe the plan isn't working as expected there, I don't know, but I certainly don't understand why turning 30% of the lakes into "quality" fisheries is required.  |
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.