Quality Trout Fisheries in Alberta

[Bigtoad]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Always trying to think of ways to make things easier for yourselves.

As I've already said HunterDave, it's not about it being easier, it's about it being possible and there is a big difference. I'm still waiting for the list of 3 lakes that it is possible to catch a 20"+ fish on a regular basis. I say "regular" basis because I don't want any "anomalies". "I once caught a 21" rainbow out of lake x back in 1980," doesn't count. Out of 300 stocked lakes in Alberta, if the fishery was anything better than mediocre, it should be easy to list 25 - 50 of such lakes.

I grew up on my grandpa's farm and he stocked fish in a dugout every year that winterkilled. He put 10-12" in the spring and by fall they were well over 16" and many over 18". That's in one year! I realize that not all lakes have the capacity to grow fish that big, that quick (especially when SRD overstocks the %*^* out of them) but it shouldn't be that hard to raise fish to a descent size.

There is a quote that says something like, "Good is what stops us from getting to great." I think you, and many people in Alberta, believe that the fishery is "good." I, and many others would disagree with you that it is mediocre to poor at best. Regardless of where you see the fishery and where I see the fishery, the fact is, we could have a MUCH better one which would benefit EVERYONE. Yup. EVERYONE. A better fishery with more quality lakes is a win, win, win, win, win situation. So if we could have it, why don't we?

Cheers.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Bigtoad

As I've already said HunterDave, it's not about it being easier, it's about it being possible and there is a big difference. I'm still waiting for the list of 3 lakes that it is possible to catch a 20"+ fish on a regular basis. I say "regular" basis because I don't want any "anomalies". "I once caught a 21" rainbow out of lake x back in 1980," doesn't count. Out of 300 stocked lakes in Alberta, if the fishery was anything better than mediocre, it should be easy to list 25 - 50 of such lakes.

I grew up on my grandpa's farm and he stocked fish in a dugout every year that winterkilled. He put 10-12" in the spring and by fall they were well over 16" and many over 18". That's in one year! I realize that not all lakes have the capacity to grow fish that big, that quick (especially when SRD overstocks the %*^* out of them) but it shouldn't be that hard to raise fish to a descent size.

There is a quote that says something like, "Good is what stops us from getting to great." I think you, and many people in Alberta, believe that the fishery is "good." I, and many others would disagree with you that it is mediocre to poor at best. Regardless of where you see the fishery and where I see the fishery, the fact is, we could have a MUCH better one which would benefit EVERYONE. Yup. EVERYONE. A better fishery with more quality lakes is a win, win, win, win, win situation. So if we could have it, why don't we?

Cheers.

Okay, since they are terminating the trout stocking program for Peanut Lake I might as well tell you about that one. Three years ago a few of us went out there to catch some fish to bbq that night out at the trailer. We were trolling in 2 different boats using Little Cleo's (no bait) on our lines. Every 5 minutes or so we were catching a fish. We wanted to catch 12" to 14" fish because they, to us anyway, are the best size and tasting fish for eating. Mostly we were catching fish that were about 16" to 20". I would expect that due to the low water level in the lake this year it will winterkill anyway.

You see, that's just one lake that had/has bigger fish in it. Hasse was another lake that I've caught bigger fish in but we all know that there are no fish left in it. How about Kananaskis Lakes.......no bigger fish in there?

How you perceive the current fishing opportunities in Alberta is relative to the way that you think. Some might consider a 16" trout as a decent size, you do not. Regardless, no matter how you sugar coat "quality" fisheries it's all about creating something that makes catching big fish easy. I believe that the anglers that want that type of fishery are in a very small minority and creating more quality fisheries does not benefit everyone as you stated, it only benefits the small minority that wants it. The average angler is happy to go out and be able to catch fish and not just big ones.

It's not a win win situation otherwise everyone would support it. It would be a win for the trophy anglers and a loss for the average angler that loses the opportunity to catch, keep and eat smaller "eatin" sized fish. Until you understand that you'll never understand why people oppose "quality" fisheries.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Regardless, no matter how you sugar coat "quality" fisheries it's all about creating something that makes catching big fish easy.

I am not sure that is what people are saying...they are saying they want to make catching bigger fish "possible". Pure and simple.
Nobody is saying they believe they can change the regulations to make it possible to catch 100 - 24 inch rainbows a day. More likely hope it to catch a number of trout between 9 and 20 inches...rather than only 9 inches. Anyone disagree with that summation?

[chubbdarter]

not to cause the conversation to go sideways....but i doubt many people are willing to post the lakes in which they are catching quality fish on the forum.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

not to cause the conversation to go sideways....but i doubt many people are willing to post the lakes in which they are catching quality fish on the forum.

It's no big secret around here if you talk to the people that know. Allot of anglers are too lazy to want to get to them anyway. I just don't see the need to post something like that on a public forum. I did offer up Peanut, Hasse and Kananaskis Lakes though.

[SNAPFisher]

Wow, you just don't seem to get it Dave. Easy to catch big fish... no one on here has said that except you. Seeing as you wear them all the time, I can tell you place that you can find cheap blinders.

Have you or do you ever fish Muir?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Wow, you just don't seem to get it Dave. Easy to catch big fish... no one on here has said that except you. Seeing as you wear them all the time, I can tell you place that you can find cheap blinders.

Have you or do you ever fish Muir?

No one that wants "quality" fisheries will ever come right out and say it, of course not. But if you unwrap the package what do you get.........easy to catch big fish. Calling a spade by a different name doesn't make it any different.

No, never been to Muir although it's only about 30 kms from here. Chickakoo is just a little farther down the road from there and there's a health supply of pan sized brookies that taste pretty good though.

Oh yeah, my wife says that size doesn't matter.

[chubbdarter]

in a perfect world all the fisherman who are catching quality fish would post up their opinions and even pictures.
just like the southern alberta walleye situation.....successful walleye anglers are just not willing to give up that kind of info.
in fact that goes for every species of fish.
In no way take my statements as saying anyone in this thread is a good or not good fisherman.
Because this is trout thread...i really would like to hear peoples definitions
1- is a quality fishery a body of water that someone like Brian Chan can go out every trip and catch a 20 inch trout....or is it a quality fishery when every one can do that because of the abundance of fish?

[Bigtoad]

I'm not looking for you to post the names of great lakes; saying that you know of 3 or more is enough for me. I'm crazy but I still have a few marbles...

My point, and the point of several other posters here is that there are very few lakes managed as quality lakes and hundreds that are put and take. I believe the there is a huge discrepancy between the percentage of people that want quality fisheries and the percentage of quality fisheries that we have. We don't want to eliminate put and take, we just want a more equal opportunity.

I'm also not convinced that the majority of fishermen want a 5 fish limit. This poll is an example. And yes, we've already discussed that this poll does not represent all fishermen in Alberta but I think the sample is pretty good. It really is surprising to me how many people on this forum would want a 1 fish limit or total C&R (of course, not to the exclusion of put and takes which I think most can agree are necessary) and I think if you were to poll Alberta fishermen who target stillwater trout you would find a very similar trend; that we are tired of lots of little fish and would have a much better experience catching and keeping a few less fish if it means that those fish are bigger.

And finally... HunetDave, let me use your own analogy of hunting. You go out hunting whitetails and during the whole hunting season, all you see are spike bucks. Now you want some meat so you shoot one of the spikers out of the 5 tags that you have. That's enough for you but many people believe it's their god-given right to take all 5, whether they use them or not.

Each year, you go farther and farther to try to find a decent whitetail buck and they are getting really hard to find, even in the more isolated areas which aren't nearly as isolated as they used to be. You remember when you were younger and there were less hunters, when a nice buck was 140 and weighed 300lbs and sometimes there were some real monsters in the fields around your place. Now, everyone sees a 3x3 buck and thinks it's huge.

Sick of every buck getting shot before it can get bigger and sick that bucks can't get old enough to get "whily" the sport is out of it for you. Sure, kids and grandparents still have fun shooting spikers but you were hoping for more. So you suggest to to the hunters in your area that perhaps they could reduce the harvest of bucks to 3 or 1 or maybe even just 1 buck that needs to have at least 4 points on one side. Well, the hunters are enraged! You're obviously trying to make hunting big bucks easier! You try to tell them that that is not the case. There just aren't any big bucks because they all get shot. NONSENSE! they cry! There are still one or two 3x3 bucks around and one guy even saw a 5x5 (of course, when word got out where it was, 20 hunters descended upon that bush and wiped every buck out by the end of the next weekend).

Besides, the poor kids and grandpa's won't be able to shoot as many spike bucks if you limit the number. You tell them that there will still be spike bucks around, but they now might be able to shoot something bigger as well. Nope! If you let more bucks get big, then you're just making it easier. And kids like to shoot spikers, they don't need to shoot a bigger buck. Sorry. If you want to shoot a big buck, you'll have to go to Sask, Manitoba, or B.C. or go WAY up into the mountains where no one can get at them. You don't like it, go somewhere else fella, cause here we like to shoot deer, and lots of them.

I realize C&R doesn't work in this analogy but I hope you can better understand the quality argument from the other side.

Cheers.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Bigtoad

I realize C&R doesn't work in this analogy but I hope you can better understand the quality argument from the other side.

Interesting read Bigtoad and it obviously took you a bit of time to think it out and write it. You can certainly spin a good yarn.

Here's the downside to your story as I see it.

That scenario only applies to trophy "Quality" hunters that only want big bucks and not the average hunter. The average hunter, myself included, are meat hunters. If I want a deer to eat then I'll shoot a doe and I don't care about the antlers. It's like keeping the smaller eatin' sized fish.

It's nice to be able to shoot a big buck, don't get me wrong, and if the opportunity arises then I'm sure that every meat hunter would instantly become a trophy hunter. However, I'll bet that there are not too many of either type of hunter that would want to go out and shoot a penned deer that was grown to a big size. Ethics aside, the challenge just wouldn't exist nor would the feeling of accomplishing something truly noteworthy.

Now if you go out fishing in Lake X and catch a 20" trout and tell your buddies they'd be impressed. However, if you go to Lake Y, a "Quality" fishery, and catch a 20" trout so what? The lake is full of them and people catch bigger ones than that everyday. I'm not suggesting that you only go out and catch big fish to impress your buddies, just pointing out the attitudes would change dependent on the level of difficulty.

I know that you keep saying that there are no lakes in Alberta, other than the "quality" fisheries, that hold +20" trout but I know that isn't true. They are there, they're just harder to catch than the smaller ones.

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by Bigtoad

I'm not looking for you to post the names of great lakes; saying that you know of 3 or more is enough for me. I'm crazy but I still have a few marbles...

My point, and the point of several other posters here is that there are very few lakes managed as quality lakes and hundreds that are put and take. I believe the there is a huge discrepancy between the percentage of people that want quality fisheries and the percentage of quality fisheries that we have. We don't want to eliminate put and take, we just want a more equal opportunity.

I'm also not convinced that the majority of fishermen want a 5 fish limit. This poll is an example. And yes, we've already discussed that this poll does not represent all fishermen in Alberta but I think the sample is pretty good. It really is surprising to me how many people on this forum would want a 1 fish limit or total C&R (of course, not to the exclusion of put and takes which I think most can agree are necessary) and I think if you were to poll Alberta fishermen who target stillwater trout you would find a very similar trend; that we are tired of lots of little fish and would have a much better experience catching and keeping a few less fish if it means that those fish are bigger.

And finally... HunetDave, let me use your own analogy of hunting. You go out hunting whitetails and during the whole hunting season, all you see are spike bucks. Now you want some meat so you shoot one of the spikers out of the 5 tags that you have. That's enough for you but many people believe it's their god-given right to take all 5, whether they use them or not.

Each year, you go farther and farther to try to find a decent whitetail buck and they are getting really hard to find, even in the more isolated areas which aren't nearly as isolated as they used to be. You remember when you were younger and there were less hunters, when a nice buck was 140 and weighed 300lbs and sometimes there were some real monsters in the fields around your place. Now, everyone sees a 3x3 buck and thinks it's huge.

Sick of every buck getting shot before it can get bigger and sick that bucks can't get old enough to get "whily" the sport is out of it for you. Sure, kids and grandparents still have fun shooting spikers but you were hoping for more. So you suggest to to the hunters in your area that perhaps they could reduce the harvest of bucks to 3 or 1 or maybe even just 1 buck that needs to have at least 4 points on one side. Well, the hunters are enraged! You're obviously trying to make hunting big bucks easier! You try to tell them that that is not the case. There just aren't any big bucks because they all get shot. NONSENSE! they cry! There are still one or two 3x3 bucks around and one guy even saw a 5x5 (of course, when word got out where it was, 20 hunters descended upon that bush and wiped every buck out by the end of the next weekend).

Besides, the poor kids and grandpa's won't be able to shoot as many spike bucks if you limit the number. You tell them that there will still be spike bucks around, but they now might be able to shoot something bigger as well. Nope! If you let more bucks get big, then you're just making it easier. And kids like to shoot spikers, they don't need to shoot a bigger buck. Sorry. If you want to shoot a big buck, you'll have to go to Sask, Manitoba, or B.C. or go WAY up into the mountains where no one can get at them. You don't like it, go somewhere else fella, cause here we like to shoot deer, and lots of them.

I realize C&R doesn't work in this analogy but I hope you can better understand the quality argument from the other side.

Cheers.

pardon my ignorance or what ever other things you may call me....but if thats true and the majority dont want a 5 fish limit....then i must assume the majority are helping the cause by taking fewer or no fish at all....which then brings me to the point....will any proposed changes - change things?
simply put if the majority dont want a 5 fish limit...they must be self regulating themselfs and the minority are still keeping 5 fish.