Alberta Fishing Guide

[millsboy79]

This might be the silliest question I ever ask on here but I am looking at the Alberta Fishing Guide and a lot of the entries have a fraction like "Pike to 8/25 lbs"

If that is a spread then that is quite a spread, I mean 8 pounds is a healthy fish but 25 pounds is a trophy.

I looked through the book back to front and there is not real explanation, I feel like there is something simple I am probably missing, because the other entries would simply say "Pike to 25 lbs" which in my mind would obviously include an 8 lb fish.

[Talking moose]

I've never seen that before in the guide. But I also haven't bought one in a few years.

[millsboy79]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

I've never seen that before in the guide. But I also haven't bought one in a few years.

There is a large number of entries like this in this year's.

[LutherDLG]

You're referring to the Barry Mitchell guide, correct? I remember asking the exact same question when I went through it earlier this year. Look really closely, I remember there being an explanation of why they changed the size entries to this format. I don't remember exactly what it was now, but it was something about realistic size vs. maximum potential size. I'll see if I can find it again so that I'm not making things up.

[rubby_dubb]

those weights were put in by George Mitchell back in the late 1970-1980 era they are not comparable to how are fishery has changed in 40 years so don't bank on any of those numbers anymore

[RavYak]

There is an explanation in it somewhere but it is something like 8 lbs is about the best a guy can expect to catch but fish up to 25 are caught.

I don't trust their numbers though, I know of too many lakes that they are off. It is still a nice resource but don't rely on it alone.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by RavYak

There is an explanation in it somewhere but it is something like 8 lbs is about the best a guy can expect to catch but fish up to 25 are caught.

I don't trust their numbers though, I know of too many lakes that they are off. It is still a nice resource but don't rely on it alone.

X2, Barry Mitchell's guide for directions and fish species. The lakes in Alberta go through Many changes, winterkill summerkill, heavy angling pressure(like when a perch lake starts producing and everyone flocks to it and cleans it out), netting, successive poor spawns, it's just too much to keep on top of things and update it. Great tool though. It gives you great directions and a very general idea on how the lake may produce.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

X2, Barry Mitchell's guide for directions and fish species. The lakes in Alberta go through Many changes, winterkill summerkill, heavy angling pressure(like when a perch lake starts producing and everyone flocks to it and cleans it out), netting, successive poor spawns, it's just too much to keep on top of things and update it. Great tool though. It gives you great directions and a very general idea on how the lake may produce.

agree. I buy the guide regularly, but I'm not confident more than a tiny proportion of all those entries can be updated regularly. I buy it mainly for the location and species info too... which has me questioning why I buy it so regularly. The lakes don't move. LOL

[millsboy79]

Guess my next question would be how often is it even updated? What's the point of putting those numbers in there if they have not been updated since the 70's.

Guess the obvious answer is that it is a money grab. I must admit I am pretty disappointed and can't see any reason to ever buy it again. It's not like there are going to new lakes.

[Talking moose]

I buy mine once every 5 years..... When the old one starts to get ratty....after 5 years you might notice a few updates such as a new access point to a lake etc...

[RavYak]

They have been updated and I believe they have been trying to update it more these last couple years since Dave Jensen took it over. I didn't buy one this year to see what changes were made though.

It isn't a money grab, it is good information and although some of it is dated a lot of that can change in a single year in fact many lakes changed in the last year and there is simply no way to keep on top of it 100%. They also have a variety of articles etc that are changed each year.

To be honest I am glad it has inaccuracies. It doesn't take long for good AB lakes to be wiped out and if accurate listings of almost every lake was available it would hurt us more then it would help.

Look at what happened to Crimson Lake last year. Word got out there was jumbo perch there, idiots posted it on here, on facebook and even in newspapers etc... In under a year all the nice perch were taken out and now it is just overrun with stunted perch that will probably never grow big again without a big partial winterkill and reduced angling pressure for a few years while it recovers...

[Deep]

This "Guide" was a very good information way back when I started fishing. Now I would likely use it for directions and possible species present. The entire Alberta fishing scene has drastically changed from when I first read this guide. Good luck.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by Jet

I believe you can find it on the front page, and it's something like the first number is the average, and the larger number is the maximum you can expect.

However the numbers are off.

I can't remember how it is worded but it isn't average, it is the high end you can expect. 8 lb average would be ridiculously good fishing.

[Bemoredog]

Buying it every 5 years seems to make sense. However, as a new angler I do appreciate the articles since they are specific to Alberta's fishing scene. $10 doesn't seem too bad either. I mean, I've spent more than that on single lures that have never caught me a damn thing.

The 8/25 thing means that the common size is 8lb, but up to 25lbs is possible. It says this somewhere in the guide, but I don't have it on me atm to check.

There could technically be new lakes, or at least reservoirs. Old Man Res was created in the 90s which is kind of recent... But no, it's not like we can expect dozens of new lakes being created every year. So fair point.

[smitty9]

The "/" symbol is not for the purpose of writing a fraction.

It is mean to convey the idea that you can reasonably expect to catch an 8 pound pike, but that would not be an average. 25 pounds is both a historical reference and a benchmark of what the lake could grow in terms of top end sizes. If I see 8 / 25, I am expecting a day of reasonable numbers of 2 to 6 pound pike, a couple in the 7 and 8 pound range, maybe a shot at something 10 plus if it's a good day.

Dave is definitely updating it; the descriptions for several rivers has changed. As for accuracy, well how many of us could do better? I am not intending to take on a defensive tone, I am just saying there are 1300 listings, and generally speaking, the fish bio's don't do regular fish inventories. Hard to be accurate when you're going by spotty historical data and anecdotal angler reports.

I buy it every year; my $13 supports a local business, being doing it since 1986. I enjoy the articles, any redundancies don't bother me.

[smitty9]

Originally Posted by Deep

This "Guide" was a very good information way back when I started fishing. Now I would likely use it for directions and possible species present. The entire Alberta fishing scene has drastically changed from when I first read this guide. Good luck.

Like the internet perhaps?

[Pierre]

in the 2003 issue of the AFG, Barry explains:

"One of the most often asked questions is, "Where do you get your information?" The answer's simple. We work damn hard at it. In the 23 years since Ann and I bought Dad's share of the business and went our own way with the magazine, we've not only acquired more than 1000 maps for research, but we've made friends with the provincial fisheries biologists and call them each year to pick their brains about conditions of specific waters in their area.

It doesn't end there. Friends, fishing partners and readers feed us new info and give us leads all the time. Then there's the 60,000 km I put on my truck every year as I do my own research or confirm something a reader has pointed out."


Since DJ has taken it over, he has stated that he works equally hard at keeping it current. I myself have provided him information to help him keep his Guide current.

[millsboy79]

Found it, it says as many have already mentioned that the first number is what you can expect and the second number is what there is a chance of.

I just don't understand why bother. I think most of us know there isn't 10 pound pike in chestermere anymore but it still says to 10 pounds. Just seems like they should choose one way of listing it and do it that way.

IF it were my choice I would rather be surprised than disappointed so I would list it with the first number only, but I am sure someone out there would do it another way.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by millsboy79

Found it, it says as many have already mentioned that the first number is what you can expect and the second number is what there is a chance of.

I just don't understand why bother. I think most of us know there isn't 10 pound pike in chestermere anymore but it still says to 10 pounds. Just seems like they should choose one way of listing it and do it that way.

IF it were my choice I would rather be surprised than disappointed so I would list it with the first number only, but I am sure someone out there would do it another way.

There are 3 options.

a) Put normal size

b) Put max size

c) Put both

I like knowing both and the / is what makes that possible. Otherwise you are always missing a lot of information.

Wabamun for example says pike to 25 I believe(going off memory...) but I know a lot of guys that have put lots of hours into Wab and never caught a 20 lber let alone a 25. If it said Pike to 15/25 then that would make much more sense but at least you know there is the odd bigger one in there.

Or they could just change them all to average size then Wab would be 3 lbs lol...

[millsboy79]

Originally Posted by RavYak

There are 3 options.

a) Put normal size

b) Put max size

c) Put both

I like knowing both and the / is what makes that possible. Otherwise you are always missing a lot of information.

Wabamun for example says pike to 25 I believe(going off memory...) but I know a lot of guys that have put lots of hours into Wab and never caught a 20 lber let alone a 25. If it said Pike to 15/25 then that would make much more sense but at least you know there is the odd bigger one in there.

Or they could just change them all to average size then Wab would be 3 lbs lol...

Then they should all be both.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by millsboy79

Then they should all be both.

In a perfect world they should have both and they should be accurate. In that perfect world a lot of lakes would get destroyed though so I am perfectly fine with some inconsistency and inaccuracy lol.

[millsboy79]

Originally Posted by RavYak

In a perfect world they should have both and they should be accurate. In that perfect world a lot of lakes would get destroyed though so I am perfectly fine with some inconsistency and inaccuracy lol.

Consistency is not too much to ask ... maybe they should not have any pounds listed in there at all that way you know what lures to bring for the specific species in lakes you want to fish but you have to go and fish it to find out what's in there for size.

I just think inaccuracies are horrible and trolls on the forums giving false reports so other people don't try their luck are extremely selfish. Just keep your comments to yourselves and leave the fish sizes out of the book. Solves all the problems

[Talking moose]

Your taking the magazine to serious dude.

[millsboy79]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Your taking the magazine to serious dude.

Perhaps ... it's just an opinion.

Sometimes your day bleeds through to your posts and they don't actually come across as you intend.

[smitty9]

Well, as I stated, been using the guide for 30 years, never got upset about the inaccuracies. My take? Take the guide with a grain a salt, works well. Try it.

I have a far bigger problem guys hotspotting fragile fisheries on the Internet and mishandling their fish in order to get a hero picture.

My 1.875 cents. Worth about 0.53 British pounds right now... Lol.

[millsboy79]

Originally Posted by smitty9

Well, as I stated, been using the guide for 30 years, never got upset about the inaccuracies. My take? Take the guide with a grain a salt, works well. Try it.

I have a far bigger problem guys hotspotting fragile fisheries on the Internet and mishandling their fish in order to get a hero picture.

My 1.875 cents. Worth about 0.53 British pounds right now... Lol.

The magazine is fine and for the tool it is I am sure I will get use out of it. Think something came across more intense than I intended. I am not here stewing in my juices cursing the people that wrote this horrible magazine. I was just saying that perhaps having no listing of the size of fish would help the "hot spotting" I would still have bought it and read it if the sizes were not there.

It was the other thing I mentioned in that post that makes me stew a little bit, but it takes all sorts to make a world.

[McLeod]

Of course fish sizes and numbers in lakes and flow water chnage from year to year. Dave has been working hard on updating all the information in guide.

There will be a major update for all the National Parks water in the next edition.

[cube]

Originally Posted by millsboy79

Consistency is not too much to ask ... maybe they should not have any pounds listed in there at all that way you know what lures to bring for the specific species in lakes you want to fish but you have to go and fish it to find out what's in there for size.

I just think inaccuracies are horrible and trolls on the forums giving false reports so other people don't try their luck are extremely selfish. Just keep your comments to yourselves and leave the fish sizes out of the book. Solves all the problems

I don't think they would sell to many guides without the size info. The regs already have most of the relevant species info so other than one or perhaps two articles you'd be buying it for nothing. Hard to sell that way.

Not sure if they do a better job on trout fisheries but I have not seen a change in the northern lake info really ever and hence stopped buying the guide a long time ago.