Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fishing Discussion

View Poll Results: What type of stillwater trout fishery would you prefer at your favourite lake?
C&R with the chance of catching trout up to 25" 112 42.75%
Limit of 1 under 18" with a good chance of fish over 22" 47 17.94%
Limit of 1 over 18" with a good chance of fish over 20" 38 14.50%
Limit of 3 any size with a good chance of fish over 16" 49 18.70%
Limit of 5 any size with a good chance of fish over 12" 16 6.11%
Voters: 262. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #271  
Old 03-02-2011, 05:00 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Not bad. My funny bone's hurtin' a bit though. Starting to get cabin fever so if the weather lets up and it's nice enough I might go to Chickakoo on Friday to see if I can catch a few small brookies for the fryin' pan. It might take awhile to drill the hole left handed but I'll manage.
good to hear.
are they nice orange meat brookies?
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 03-02-2011, 05:28 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
good to hear.
are they nice orange meat brookies?
I don't know chub. I don't normally fish there. I would expect so though.

I saw a thread awhile back with a picture of some nice sized pan sized brookies in it and it made me hungry. I used to catch the little ones in the creeks when I was a kid and I remembered how delicious they were. They are probably the best tasting fish to me and my mouth is actually watering right now as I type.
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 03-02-2011, 05:35 PM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,793
Default

Hunter Dave,

Loved your comment about the North Ram. The first year it went to C&R the creel census gal registered 8 fish for all summer. That's what 5/day gets you on a stream that can't support it.

And spend a day looking around @ all the lakes in your area and see if people are actually using them. In the Rocky area, they vote with their feet and only show up in any numbers @ the 3 lakes where they can possibly catch a larger fish.

Which this means of course, that the other lakes are under utilized. I don't spend all day driving around but have taken the time to see how the lakes were being used. The C&R lakes saw a lot of folks there, the kill lakes few to sometimes nobody @ all. From the vote on this forum, that about reflects what shows up on the ground.


There are 3 measurements that should be considered when assessing utilization rates:
* total numbers of anglers.
* total numbers of anglers/surface area - ya' can't compare Lake Superior>Muir
* total numbers of anglers/total numbers of fish stocked over the past 4 years - will get you some right interesting #'s.
Both C&R Lakes in the Rocky area run about 800 fish/angler.
Mitchell Lake which is kill and has browns in it to 17" runs about 3500 fish/angler
Struble lLake which has a 5 limit runs about 75,000 fish/angler mostly cause it full of tiny fish.


And I'll stand by the 2 lakes that are Quality. Just calling them Quality is BS. They have to demonstrate that they are a Quality fishery. So far, we have had 3 in the Rocky area that might have got to or retained Quality standards. Whoops, the ball got dropped and 2 of the 3 are now toast.

Don
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 03-02-2011, 06:32 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Andersen View Post
Hunter Dave,

Loved your comment about the North Ram. The first year it went to C&R the creel census gal registered 8 fish for all summer. That's what 5/day gets you on a stream that can't support it.

And spend a day looking around @ all the lakes in your area and see if people are actually using them. In the Rocky area, they vote with their feet and only show up in any numbers @ the 3 lakes where they can possibly catch a larger fish.

Which this means of course, that the other lakes are under utilized. I don't spend all day driving around but have taken the time to see how the lakes were being used. The C&R lakes saw a lot of folks there, the kill lakes few to sometimes nobody @ all. From the vote on this forum, that about reflects what shows up on the ground.


There are 3 measurements that should be considered when assessing utilization rates:
* total numbers of anglers.
* total numbers of anglers/surface area - ya' can't compare Lake Superior>Muir
* total numbers of anglers/total numbers of fish stocked over the past 4 years - will get you some right interesting #'s.
Both C&R Lakes in the Rocky area run about 800 fish/angler.
Mitchell Lake which is kill and has browns in it to 17" runs about 3500 fish/angler
Struble lLake which has a 5 limit runs about 75,000 fish/angler mostly cause it full of tiny fish.


And I'll stand by the 2 lakes that are Quality. Just calling them Quality is BS. They have to demonstrate that they are a Quality fishery. So far, we have had 3 in the Rocky area that might have got to or retained Quality standards. Whoops, the ball got dropped and 2 of the 3 are now toast.

Don
I think that you have me confused with someone else. I don't remember saying anything about the North Ram because I have never fished it. Maybe you are referring to something that I quoted.....I dunno.

I don't think that the area that you think that I'm fishing in is right. Morinville is north of Edmonton and I've already stated that I fish Peanut Lake. Many times I've been the only boat on that lake and I've caught plenty of bigger fish.

If allot of lakes are under utilized as you say, then wouldn't it make sense that those lakes should hold bigger fish due to a lower catch and keep rate? If you want to follow the crowds because Joe Schmo caught a big fish somewhere last week then you're only going to end up chasing your tail. Like I've said right from the beginning, allot of anglers are plain out lazy and they don't want to put in the time in order to catch a big fish. I don't think that creating more bodies of water with easier to catch bigger fish is the solution to that.

If the total of lakes that are classed as "quality" is not 17 as listed on SRD website, then what's the problem? Can they not grow fish big enough, in which case the "quality" fishery experiment has failed in them, or, are the fish still growing and have not reached the anticipated 50 cm size? If it's the latter, then it should be a non-issue because "quality" fishery proponents have said all along that it would take 3 or 4 years to reach the quality status.

Regardless of the size of the fish in the 17 lakes classed as "quality" fisheries, the regs for those lakes have the restrictions for a "quality" fishery. If they end up becoming C&R lakes because of the regs, who's fault is that?
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 03-02-2011, 06:51 PM
DuckBrat's Avatar
DuckBrat DuckBrat is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,349
Default

Quality Fishery stocked Parkland, Foothills, Boreal, or Prairie lake=A healthy number of trout 18"-30" Available to catch. Not easy to catch, just leave the difficult part to me. Aerated if need be. Limited harvest.

Mountain lakes Non-Stocked - Very Limited harvest, no bait, Managed for sustainability. Trout size as Nature intended.

Rivers and Creeks - No bait, very limited harvest on Trout and Grayling. Brook Trout no limit as long as the angler can pass a test to verify they can distinguish Brook Trout from Bull trout. Size in Creeks varies but quality states anywhere from 8" up to 30"(Depending on Species and habitat present) with many over 14". Big Rivers (Bow & Red Deer) Same deal a range of sizes but a good average from 18"->25" with good possibilities of 30".

A general rule again but all depending on species and habitat present.

As for this thread getting out of hand I don't see it, there is no acidic mud-slinging here.

Looks to me like there are more people here looking for the quality fishery than status quo, can't blame them.

Out.
__________________
Respecting the land, water, fish, and wildlife is what makes true hunters and fishermen.

Road hunting is not hunting.
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 03-02-2011, 07:04 PM
DuckBrat's Avatar
DuckBrat DuckBrat is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,349
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
If the total of lakes that are classed as "quality" is not 17 as listed on SRD website, then what's the problem? Can they not grow fish big enough, in which case the "quality" fishery experiment has failed in them, or, are the fish still growing and have not reached the anticipated 50 cm size? If it's the latter, then it should be a non-issue because "quality" fishery proponents have said all along that it would take 3 or 4 years to reach the quality status.

In most cases when the fish are not reaching the expected size you can count on Poaching playing a huge role. Over harvest by increased anglers does not help the situation. Limits may be reduced but harvest stays the same.


There are very few of the lakes mentioned that cannot sustain a healthy population of good sized trout. Use Carson Lake history as a window. Rarely do you see a trout over 16 " these days. Rainbow trout to 12-14 pounds and over 30 " in the 70's and 80's. Over harvest, increased population have made Carson Mediocre to say the least. Carson would be a much bigger tourist draw if one was able to fish for those large trout again.

In the case of Muir the water level had dropped 7-8 feet from the 60's. The lack of water column has stunted/limited the fishery potential. It was a nice thought(project) but very poor location.
__________________
Respecting the land, water, fish, and wildlife is what makes true hunters and fishermen.

Road hunting is not hunting.
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 03-02-2011, 08:13 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
If allot of lakes are under utilized as you say, then wouldn't it make sense that those lakes should hold bigger fish due to a lower catch and keep rate?
Don has said it before...over stocking stops the rainbows from growing...hence you don't get big trout in lakes where they put too many stockers in. Lots of little uns...no big uns.

Works the same as perch but perch over populate the lakes on their own...people over populate the stocked lakes.

Is that your point Don?
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 03-02-2011, 11:58 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckBrat View Post
There are very few of the lakes mentioned that cannot sustain a healthy population of good sized trout. Use Carson Lake history as a window. Rarely do you see a trout over 16 " these days. Rainbow trout to 12-14 pounds and over 30 " in the 70's and 80's. Over harvest, increased population have made Carson Mediocre to say the least. Carson would be a much bigger tourist draw if one was able to fish for those large trout again.
Angler attitude and education is the problem if you ask me.
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 03-03-2011, 12:01 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
Lets simplify this.....obviously one group wants support and needs fisherman to back their cause. Im assuming this will take letters and emails to the people in power to make the wanted changes.

Bigtoad, Sun and Doc type and express themselfs really well.
Lets see what your letter would look like. Any one then can copy and paste it and send it with their signature.

that is of course if the 3 men agree on how to accomplish the desired result

Wont that accomplish more than a poll they may or not see?
Nah...........someone else can do it.
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 03-03-2011, 07:32 AM
GaryF GaryF is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 178
Default

It's been an interesting read so far. One of the reasons that HD doesn't understand the quality viewpoint is that within 30 mins of where he lives there are 8 stocked lakes with 35,000 + trout getting pumped into it every year. The nearest stocked trout lake to me is more than an hour away, and any quality fishing is at least 2. I can see why he doesn't understand this as he doesn't need to drive very far to get to a lake with the possibility of hold overs from previous years. Heck if he wants to catch some he just needs to go to one of 2 stocked waters right in his town. I don't have that luxury as I live in Calgary. My fees go to the stocking program as well, so why shouldn't I get a body of water within 30 mins of where I live and get 35,000 fish dumped into it? Because at the current 5 a day mentality there would be no fish left in short order. Bring on special regs!!

The only way that HD would understand this viewpoint is if everytime he wanted to go fish for trout he would have to drive a minimum of 90 minutes each way, and that ppl who are closer than that have already fished it almost dry. Then the frustration would set in with the wasted money and time spent to catch nothing but 9" trout, if there are even any left for him. Soon he would be asking for a fishery near his place for trout with regs on it to delay the harvest so that fish could grow and you could catch more than just tiddlers. Until he has experienced a void of decent trout fishing for a couple of years, none of this will make sense to him.

Its good to see that SRD has created more lakes in an attempt to create quality fisheries, now lets see how they manage them.
__________________
Enjoying the peace and serenity of this wonderful sport!!
Reply With Quote
  #281  
Old 03-03-2011, 07:38 AM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,793
Default

Some early morning digging and adding got me:

Total Number of lakes stocked by SRD & ACA in Alberta = 301
Total Number of "Quality Lake" = 17
Percentage of Lake that might be managed as Quality 5.6%
Numbers of anglers supporting a kill of 5 = 5%
Numbers of anglers supporting a regulation of kill over 20"= 76%


Is the Govt that far out of step with the angling population? Looks like only 5% of the anglers support SRD managing 95% of our trout lakes as non-Quality.


Of the lakes in the Quality list below only Bullshead & Muir. The rest are either to new to know or have already been screwed by poor management practices.

Bullshead PP1 1 > 50 cm Bait Ban Nov 1 - Mar 31
Police (Outpost) PP1 1 > 50 cm Bait Ban Nov 1 - Mar 31
Kerbe's PP2 1 > 50 cm Bait Ban Dec 1 - Mar 31
Muir PP2 1 > 50 cm Bait Ban Nov 1 - Apr 30
Champion ES1 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Muskiki ES2 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Beaver ES2 1/1 > 40 cm & < 40 cm Bait Ban Dec 1 - Mar 31
Fiesta ES2 0 N/A Bait Ban Nov 1 - Apr 15
Ironside ES2 0 N/A Bait Ban Nov 1 - Apr 15
Silkstone ES2 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Lovett ES3 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Pit 24 ES3 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Pit 35 ES3 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Pit 45 ES3 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Lower Pierre Grey's ES4 1 > 40 cm Bait Ban Open
Figure 8 NB3 5 N/A Bait Allowed Op


Don


And Sun...

You have to balance the number of fish in the lake to the food resources to maintain any growth @ all.
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 03-03-2011, 09:37 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Angler attitude and education is the problem if you ask me.
LOL

So how are you proposing we keep the limit at 5 and get people to release more fish? Electric dog collars? Vigilante stick patrol to whack em? Dropping the limit or creating a size limit seems too hard for you accept? How do you presume F&W budget harvest rates with a limit of 5...high angler usage and a sign that says please don't take your limit? How does this address a problem where over stocking to please 5% of the fishing populous is ruining what could be an awesome fishery?

What attitude adjustment are you contemplating? What specific eduction program are you proposing?

Your simple statement...however sincere is causing way more questions needing to be answered before we can ascertain if it holds validity.
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 03-03-2011, 10:48 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Andersen View Post
Some early morning digging and adding got me:

Total Number of lakes stocked by SRD & ACA in Alberta = 301
Total Number of "Quality Lake" = 17
Percentage of Lake that might be managed as Quality 5.6%
Numbers of anglers supporting a kill of 5 = 5%
Numbers of anglers supporting a regulation of kill over 20"= 76%


Is the Govt that far out of step with the angling population? Looks like only 5% of the anglers support SRD managing 95% of our trout lakes as non-Quality.
Early morning indeed. Perhaps you should have waited a bit until you had a couple of coffees first.

The total numbers of stocked lakes at 301 sounds about right but the total number of "quality" lakes does not include the C&R lakes that would bring the total number of "quality" lakes up to 28. Of course, C&R lakes don't offer the opportunity to keep a big fish to eat however they do provide a place for fish huggers to have a photo op. Including those lakes would change your percentage of "quality" lakes to over 9%.

I'm assuming that you are using the enclosed poll to come up with your last two statistics. Do I really need to explain to you how that is wrong on so many different levels? Maybe PETA will conduct a poll and use the results of it to support their cause to shut down all fishing in Alberta? I can see it now, out of 190 people that voted on the poll 100% chose shutting down all fishing in Alberta...........the numbers prove that this is what the people want!

If you want to stay in a dream world and use the results of the enclosed poll to prove your point then by all means, go for it. The reality is that it is not representative of what all anglers in Alberta want. SRD is aware of what the majority of anglers want and they have developed policies to that effect.

IMO "quality" fishery proponents should be putting more effort into trying to make the existing "quality" fisheries work instead of trying to create more of them.
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:15 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryF View Post
It's been an interesting read so far. One of the reasons that HD doesn't understand the quality viewpoint is that within 30 mins of where he lives there are 8 stocked lakes with 35,000 + trout getting pumped into it every year. The nearest stocked trout lake to me is more than an hour away, and any quality fishing is at least 2. I can see why he doesn't understand this as he doesn't need to drive very far to get to a lake with the possibility of hold overs from previous years. Heck if he wants to catch some he just needs to go to one of 2 stocked waters right in his town. I don't have that luxury as I live in Calgary. My fees go to the stocking program as well, so why shouldn't I get a body of water within 30 mins of where I live and get 35,000 fish dumped into it? Because at the current 5 a day mentality there would be no fish left in short order. Bring on special regs!!

The only way that HD would understand this viewpoint is if everytime he wanted to go fish for trout he would have to drive a minimum of 90 minutes each way, and that ppl who are closer than that have already fished it almost dry. Then the frustration would set in with the wasted money and time spent to catch nothing but 9" trout, if there are even any left for him. Soon he would be asking for a fishery near his place for trout with regs on it to delay the harvest so that fish could grow and you could catch more than just tiddlers. Until he has experienced a void of decent trout fishing for a couple of years, none of this will make sense to him.

Its good to see that SRD has created more lakes in an attempt to create quality fisheries, now lets see how they manage them.
Yes Gary, that sums my situation up very well. By Alberta fishing standards I think that I have it pretty good. If you want to expand the area that you described I guess that I have it even better. So why then, would I want to give that up?

I do understand the limitations that other people in different areas have when it comes to fishing. What I have a hard time understanding is why some fellas pm me saying that they are catching big fish in the Calgary area when other people tell me that there are no fish in that area, let alone big ones. Assuming that what they are telling me is true then why? Are they better anglers, have more opportunity to go out or have secret honey holes that no one else knows about?

As a retired military fella I've moved around allot and some places are better for fishing than others. That's just the way that it is. While posted to Germany I was fishing gravel quarries for carp because that was what was there. My posting before my last one here in Edmonton was in Petawawa, Ontario. The fishing in that area was absolutely phenomenal. Should I expect the fishery where I live now to be as good as there.......no, I don't think so. To me, trying to create another Manitoba in Alberta is somewhere along the same lines as that.
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:29 AM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

This is really very FUNNY at this point
Group A keeps stating they have the majority vote.....yet dont do anything with this so CALLED majority .
Unless Dave hasnt told me he is in Control of the Alberta Trout Stocking Program and needs to be convinced.
I understand good discussion leads to good decisions.....but 3 threads and so many pages of the same crap is enough....if youve got the majority...then take your power and push it through. Other wise its just cronic cry baby bedwetting.

Good luck to everyone
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:33 AM
Heron Heron is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sherwood Park
Posts: 221
Default

A few ideas...

The government should give every angler who purchases a license a fair survey that does not have any particular agenda, asking what it is the anglers of Alberta want. I know that is no easy feat because I am taking a course on research and analysis right now and it would have to be done by qualified people. If "Joe Alberta " wants to keep it the way it is I could live with that. I would love to vote for my two children but I don't see how that would work. Uh yaa I have 9 kids... Seniors can go by a license outlet and fill theirs out.

Poachers? I said it a long time ago in another thread. I would fully support 1/3 of the 301 lakes going to some kind of delayed harvest/lower keep limit. Of the 35 bodies of water I would consider driving to and fishing for a day from Sherwood Park make 12 of them delayed harvest. Yes there will be poaching it will be spread over more bodies of water and have less of an impact. I may be naive but I believe most people would follow the new laws and once anglers see the benefits mentality about poaching will change.

I am working on a letter.
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:36 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
LOL

So how are you proposing we keep the limit at 5 and get people to release more fish? Electric dog collars? Vigilante stick patrol to whack em? Dropping the limit or creating a size limit seems too hard for you accept? How do you presume F&W budget harvest rates with a limit of 5...high angler usage and a sign that says please don't take your limit? How does this address a problem where over stocking to please 5% of the fishing populous is ruining what could be an awesome fishery?

What attitude adjustment are you contemplating? What specific eduction program are you proposing?

Your simple statement...however sincere is causing way more questions needing to be answered before we can ascertain if it holds validity.
It works in other provinces without it being law to put back the big fish and only keep the smaller eatin' sized ones and no one is getting zapped with tazers there. I do it because I think that it's the right thing to do and not because I'm wearing a shock collar. Plus the smaller ones taste better and I don't care what anyone says. It would definitely be a task because of the strong desire of some Alberta anglers to only want to catch big fish, but not impossible.

I would start by educating new anglers about fish conservation and attitudes that would help to improve everyone's fishing experience. I would encourage them to practice it everywhere and not dismiss it simply because "the fish can't spawn in the lake anyway."

Adults can be better educated by local fishing clubs and through talking with fellow anglers (peer pressure?). When someone catches a big fish to keep it should be frowned upon and eventually people will learn. Just look at the mocking that went on on this thread when I said that I keep small fish to eat and not the big ones. That type of attitude should be directed towards people that catch and keep big fish to eat and not the fella that catches and keeps the small fish to eat.
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:41 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
Unless Dave hasnt told me he is in Control of the Alberta Trout Stocking Program and needs to be convinced.
Yeah, I am.
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:43 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
I'm assuming that you are using the enclosed poll to come up with your last two statistics. Do I really need to explain to you how that is wrong on so many different levels? Maybe PETA will conduct a poll and use the results of it to support their cause to shut down all fishing in Alberta? I can see it now, out of 190 people that voted on the poll 100% chose shutting down all fishing in Alberta...........the numbers prove that this is what the people want!
Very, very good attempt at undermining the poll. However you are not matching apples to apples and explaining the results properly.

If 190 people on a PETA poll voted...that means 100% of PETA members believe that. So by your own admission...this poll is 100% outdoorsmen, hunters and fishermen...so of this demographic...95% voted in favour of better fishing as defined by larger fish.

It was a very shrewd attempt at deflection once again...but unfortunately it was not anywheres near the mark.

If by some reason you are saying that AOF members do not show a major trend or reflection of the group as a whole...you are surely off the mark. Opinion polls are done constantly...they list their error to within X points. For you to postulate that this poll is off by 95% or even 46% is ludicrous. It just goes to show while you are an excellent debater...you are not dealing with facts but just trying to backstop your desire to protect what you want at the expense of everyone else.

IMHO
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:45 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heron View Post
Uh yaa I have 9 kids...
9 KIDS!!!!

Holy crap...when did you ever have time to learn fishing or even practice fishing...

Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:47 AM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sundancefisher View Post
very, very good attempt at undermining the poll. However you are not matching apples to apples and explaining the results properly.

If 190 people on a peta poll voted...that means 100% of peta members believe that. So by your own admission...this poll is 100% outdoorsmen, hunters and fishermen...so of this demographic...95% voted in favour of better fishing as defined by larger fish.

It was a very shrewd attempt at deflection once again...but unfortunately it was not anywheres near the mark.

If by some reason you are saying that aof members do not show a major trend or reflection of the group as a whole...you are surely off the mark. Opinion polls are done constantly...they list their error to within x points. For you to postulate that this poll is off by 95% or even 46% is ludicrous. It just goes to show while you are an excellent debater...you are not dealing with facts but just trying to backstop your desire to protect what you want at the expense of everyone else.

Imho
then do something with your vote of confidence......prove its a fact
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:49 AM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Yeah, I am.
Im starting to believe that....Davey Buddy can you get my street cleaned when you have lunch with the premier next.
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:54 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
It works in other provinces without it being law to put back the big fish and only keep the smaller eatin' sized ones and no one is getting zapped with tazers there. I do it because I think that it's the right thing to do and not because I'm wearing a shock collar. Plus the smaller ones taste better and I don't care what anyone says. It would definitely be a task because of the strong desire of some Alberta anglers to only want to catch big fish, but not impossible.

I would start by educating new anglers about fish conservation and attitudes that would help to improve everyone's fishing experience. I would encourage them to practice it everywhere and not dismiss it simply because "the fish can't spawn in the lake anyway."

Adults can be better educated by local fishing clubs and through talking with fellow anglers (peer pressure?). When someone catches a big fish to keep it should be frowned upon and eventually people will learn. Just look at the mocking that went on on this thread when I said that I keep small fish to eat and not the big ones. That type of attitude should be directed towards people that catch and keep big fish to eat and not the fella that catches and keeps the small fish to eat.
There you go again...trying to extrapolate incorrectly to prove your point. Firstly...you don't provide any data to show that any other provinces have the same problem as us...few lakes and high fishing pressure. Also of course showing the actual limit to limit comparison between provinces and like water bodies with like fishing pressure. Simple to do.

Secondly...you are probably even stretching this to non stocked rainbow trout lakes... So in your data...please remove everything excepted stocked rainbows to make the comparison simple.

Thirdly...how many generations and decades would be required for dads and grandpas to teach their kids...the next generation to only put back the big ones and keep only the tiny ones even if all they caught that day was big ones?

Fourthly...your idea to fix a fishing problems is so simple... just change the way society thinks and acts... Let's get started Dave...I will change southern Alberta...you change northern Alberta...by tomorrow noon...we should be done and you and I can exchange notes and share a rare scotch.

Fifth...let's force everyone to join a local fishing club...not increasing taxes however...we can all pay the yearly dues on top of our licence fees. Then we can all get lectured to. Upon writing a multiple choice test, verbal test and an essay question...we can wait until our mark comes in. If we pass the conservation test...then we get our licence and can go fishing.



The important thing is your idea is so simple...it beats the hell out of making a lower limit and adjusting the minimum size as required to meet the general fishing requirements for individual lakes.

So simple Dave...I wish you started this thread out with your post. We could of stopped after three.

Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:57 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
Very, very good attempt at undermining the poll. However you are not matching apples to apples and explaining the results properly.

If 190 people on a PETA poll voted...that means 100% of PETA members believe that. So by your own admission...this poll is 100% outdoorsmen, hunters and fishermen...so of this demographic...95% voted in favour of better fishing as defined by larger fish.

It was a very shrewd attempt at deflection once again...but unfortunately it was not anywheres near the mark.

If by some reason you are saying that AOF members do not show a major trend or reflection of the group as a whole...you are surely off the mark. Opinion polls are done constantly...they list their error to within X points. For you to postulate that this poll is off by 95% or even 46% is ludicrous. It just goes to show while you are an excellent debater...you are not dealing with facts but just trying to backstop your desire to protect what you want at the expense of everyone else.

IMHO
So you are saying that because the attached poll shows that 95% of the people that voted on it want "quality" fisheries this is representative of what the results would be if all anglers throughout Alberta were polled?

I can't explain it any better to you than I already have as to why it's not . Maybe my brain is just wired differently than yours.
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:59 AM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
Im starting to believe that....Davey Buddy can you get my street cleaned when you have lunch with the premier next.
Sorry, that's municipal, I'm only in charge of everything provincial.
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 03-03-2011, 11:59 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
Im starting to believe that....Davey Buddy can you get my street cleaned when you have lunch with the premier next.
LOL...can he make is stop snowing and bring on warmer weather...then I would even vote for Dave to be the next Premier.



Seriously though Chubby.

I am voicing my opinion to F&W...however...it is grass roots conversations such as this thread that just gets others thinking about the topic. Then we can usurp apathy and get people off their couches and sending in the odd letter now and again to their MP or Premier.

That is a step that so far the sportfishing lobby in Alberta has been unable to do with any seriousness.

I don't believe that is from a lack of desire...but probably from a lack of confidence that our opinions matter.

Clearly F&W has seen our comments in the past...and bam...as a result some new paradigm regulations like Bullshead evolved.

Guys like Don state they pounded their heads against a brick wall for years...now with the internet and some new blood moving through F&W...we can see a change in thinking for the better.

Cheers

Sun
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 03-03-2011, 12:01 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Sorry, that's municipal, I'm only in charge of everything provincial.
hahahahahah...i appreciate your honesty
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 03-03-2011, 12:05 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
So you are saying that because the attached poll shows that 95% of the people that voted on it want "quality" fisheries this is representative of what the results would be if all anglers throughout Alberta were polled?

I can't explain it any better to you than I already have as to why it's not . Maybe my brain is just wired differently than yours.
Your whole argument is that a large percentage of a random group of fishermen across Alberta who are members of AOF have voted 95% in favour of change and you don't believe that is accurately reflecting at least a desire of 50 +1 % to move towards change. I don't want to insult anyone of AOF by assuming we are not reflective of the whole...I can not see how AOF could be elitist in our attitudes. It seems based upon posts there is a wide range of people and attitudes on here.

You feel that this poll could be inaccurate and that if all fishing Albertans were polled that 95% would be in favour of keeping the regulations exactly the same.

Interesting theory...but plausible no. Could a true poll be closer to 70% in favour of change...15% against change and 15% unsure...yes...I could say there is some error in the reporting...but within a range that is not like you insinuate.

IMHO.

Last edited by Sundancefisher; 03-03-2011 at 12:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 03-03-2011, 12:08 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
There you go again...trying to extrapolate incorrectly to prove your point. Firstly...you don't provide any data to show that any other provinces have the same problem as us...few lakes and high fishing pressure. Also of course showing the actual limit to limit comparison between provinces and like water bodies with like fishing pressure. Simple to do.

Secondly...you are probably even stretching this to non stocked rainbow trout lakes... So in your data...please remove everything excepted stocked rainbows to make the comparison simple.

Thirdly...how many generations and decades would be required for dads and grandpas to teach their kids...the next generation to only put back the big ones and keep only the tiny ones even if all they caught that day was big ones?

Fourthly...your idea to fix a fishing problems is so simple... just change the way society thinks and acts... Let's get started Dave...I will change southern Alberta...you change northern Alberta...by tomorrow noon...we should be done and you and I can exchange notes and share a rare scotch.

Fifth...let's force everyone to join a local fishing club...not increasing taxes however...we can all pay the yearly dues on top of our licence fees. Then we can all get lectured to. Upon writing a multiple choice test, verbal test and an essay question...we can wait until our mark comes in. If we pass the conservation test...then we get our licence and can go fishing.



The important thing is your idea is so simple...it beats the hell out of making a lower limit and adjusting the minimum size as required to meet the general fishing requirements for individual lakes.

So simple Dave...I wish you started this thread out with your post. We could of stopped after three.

Yeah, you're right. It's probably too hard to educate and change angler's attitudes so let's not do it. I know!!! Instead, let's make it easier to catch and keep big fish and really pound home the idea of keeping only bigger fish!
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 03-03-2011, 12:10 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Sorry, that's municipal, I'm only in charge of everything provincial.
sorry i had to quote the funniest post 1 more time.....lol..hahahahahha
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.