Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fishing Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-11-2018, 12:59 PM
CMichaud's Avatar
CMichaud CMichaud is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Beijing, Canada
Posts: 1,470
Default Touchwood and Seibert

Looking at the regs looks like they are 0/0 for Walleye and Pike this year? (less Siebert has tags/draw)

I was looking them up on the regs for a buddy and he was shocked.

Are these lakes not doing well?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-11-2018, 01:21 PM
FlyTheory's Avatar
FlyTheory FlyTheory is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 1,477
Default

Seibert is great, they must be trying to preserve its trophy-lake status and prevent overfishing. I can’t speak about touchwood, I’ve never been.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-11-2018, 01:38 PM
Pikebreath Pikebreath is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,257
Default

Purely anecdotal,,,, We have fished Touchwood for a weekend in June for the past 15 or so years,, but our catch rate for pike has dropped off in Touchwood in recent years, certainly was getting harder to catch a legal pike in the last couple years. We used to get decent numbers of large pike (8 -15 lb with the odd one up to 20lb plus) prior to 2012.

Suspect the drop off may have been related to spawning failures in the dry years prior to 2010 ( spawning creeks were not always flowing fully). Since then, angling pressure may be just enough to keep the pike population from recovering fully to former levels.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-11-2018, 02:14 PM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

I haven't fished either enough for an opinion but I can tell you that netting data is the main thing bios are using to make decisions now.

The netting data for Siebert look like the typical recovered walleye lake. Used to be known as a great pike lake but numbers are down now replaced by significant numbers of walleye. Still a few big pike but almost no smaller pike in their data(that could be in part due to the netting procedure but it doesn't look good, the previous netting data looked similar too).

Touchwood shows low to average numbers for both pike and walleye. What I call average is nowhere near what fisheries wants to see in these lakes though.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-13-2018, 07:46 AM
Penner's Avatar
Penner Penner is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
I haven't fished either enough for an opinion but I can tell you that netting data is the main thing bios are using to make decisions now.

The netting data for Siebert look like the typical recovered walleye lake. Used to be known as a great pike lake but numbers are down now replaced by significant numbers of walleye. Still a few big pike but almost no smaller pike in their data(that could be in part due to the netting procedure but it doesn't look good, the previous netting data looked similar too).

Touchwood shows low to average numbers for both pike and walleye. What I call average is nowhere near what fisheries wants to see in these lakes though.
Has nothing to do with the Walleye. Unfortunately regulations have had keep 1 over 100cm for Pike for ever on Siebert which has essentially removed most of the big breeding hens out of the lake. It will take many years for it to recover.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-13-2018, 08:38 AM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penner View Post
Has nothing to do with the Walleye. Unfortunately regulations have had keep 1 over 100cm for Pike for ever on Siebert which has essentially removed most of the big breeding hens out of the lake. It will take many years for it to recover.
I agree. I stopped fishing it about 5 years ago and even then the big ones were becoming a challenge to find.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-13-2018, 09:38 AM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penner View Post
Has nothing to do with the Walleye. Unfortunately regulations have had keep 1 over 100cm for Pike for ever on Siebert which has essentially removed most of the big breeding hens out of the lake. It will take many years for it to recover.
A pike will have already bred multiple times before it is 100 cm. Something else was at play as well.

The netting data for both 2010 and 2015 show populations of fish 65-100 cm(all breeders) and almost nothing smaller.

Either that netting data was missing the smaller pike population due to net placement, the fish aren't reproducing successfully, there is a poaching issue, something is eating all the young pike(walleye?) or the small fish aren't able to compete with walleye.

I am not sure what the ultimate reason is(likely some combination of the above) but I am betting the walleye are having an effect. We have seen a similar pike reduction on a large number of other lakes now including Wabamun, Pigeon, Ste. Anne, Gull, Buck, Sylvan etc. The small pike are in direct competition with the walleye and the large walleye populations clean out the forage base to the point where the pike no longer do well. All these lakes have seen reductions in pike numbers and failure to recover even with C&R regs.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-13-2018, 10:56 AM
summitizer summitizer is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 35
Default

Spot on. We have seen it on pigeon. So my question to our fishery bio’s is what is happening to all these lakes. All us fishermen can do is speculate on what we think is happening. Is there any definitive data that has been gathered that can show the reason for the pike collapse. And if not WHY NOT. I sure hope The bio’s are not just looking at fishing as the problem and picking the low hanging fruit. That’s just too easy....
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-13-2018, 11:05 AM
The Spruce's Avatar
The Spruce The Spruce is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Eastern Alberta
Posts: 891
Default

Touchwood has the issue where fish greater than 4" in diameter tend to go missing for some reason. This has always been the main issue on Touchwood.

Siebert is an excellent Walleye lake, but tags make $. The Pike have been declining with the low water level there. Water is finally on the rise, hopefully this will cause the pike to rebound....but likely not with millions of walleye left unchecked. Seibert will be the next Pigeon, or Wolf. Millions of Walleye, very few pike left, little to no small pike.

Spruce
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-13-2018, 11:57 AM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by summitizer View Post
Is there any definitive data that has been gathered that can show the reason for the pike collapse. And if not WHY NOT. I sure hope The bio’s are not just looking at fishing as the problem and picking the low hanging fruit. That’s just too easy....
Fisheries has taken the stance that increasing walleye populations do not affect pike populations. It blows my mind since there are so many examples contrary and I know they have data showing this.

Fisheries used a chart to try and show that walleye population doesn't affect pike at the information sessions in the fall. It was a chart showing netting data for walleye on one axis and pike on the other. There was no obvious correlation between high walleye numbers and low pike numbers. Some lakes showed high numbers of walleye, low numbers of pike. Some showed the opposite. Some showed high numbers of both or low numbers of both.

The problem with this is that you are comparing apples to oranges. Every lake is created different. Some lakes pike or walleye naturally do better in. Some lakes hold way more fish then others. None of the data on the chart was labelled so a guy was unable to know which lake was which or what years the data was from.

The only way to accurately determine the effects of increasing populations is to look at the data for an individual lake during the period of an increasing population. Wabamun is one of the few lakes that this has happened in for which netting data is available. The data already shows a correlation and once they do another netting it will be even more obvious.



Gull is another one



I would bet money that there is data to back up a similar change on a number of other lakes as I have heard first hand from people how Ste. Anne, Pigeon, Calling etc had larger populations of pike before the walleye were recovered. Those lakes have all had high populations of walleye for a while now though and the netting data isn't available online anymore(they removed all the data older then 2010 when they switched from the SRD to AEP website).
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-13-2018, 01:01 PM
andyandrew65 andyandrew65 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4
Default

I have been going to Touchwood lake for nearly 15 years now and I can agree that Pike fishing (walleye has always been 0) has drastically decreased over time. However, that being said I can tell you all that catching a Pike that is over 63cm was never an issue. Obviously some days were slower, but if we went out for the weekend, we would end up catching a minimum of 1 for dinner.

Considering the sheer size and depth of Touchwood, there are a lot of places for Pike to hide/sit during the day. I really do not agree with the closure of this lake considering how beautiful the campground and the clarity of water.

Like many lakes, there are gonna be spots where the fishing is better and the fishing is worse. Like here, I can tell you there are definitely spots where all youll catch are pistols and there are other spots where you will catch 80cm+. Its really a shame because we would come out to this lake to get away from the city and to catch and keep (to eat) some fish. Now theres no point in traveling 300+km to a lake that has no possession (burbot/whitefish are not possible to catch during summer and perch barely exist unless you know the right spots ), the fee of camping being 26$ per day and just last year you had to start paying for firewood.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-13-2018, 01:13 PM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

90% of the fish live in 10% of the water. Yet fisheries on purpose randomly places their nets throughout a lake.

In short I have little support for the netting program especially when it comes to pike. I know of too many examples that are contrary to their data and it primarily comes down to knowing where the fish are. It is easy to go to a lake and not catch a fish if you don't know what you are doing or where to fish.

I believe they need to greatly expand their data collection programs as relying so heavily on this netting data is proving to be ineffective. Case in point they don't do any netting/analysis for perch, whitefish or burbot which was their whole argument at the information sessions for not believing that increasing walleye populations are affecting these other species(even though they had 100 anglers yelling at them all saying they have noticed the same thing...).
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-13-2018, 01:47 PM
Bigwoodsman Bigwoodsman is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 8,267
Default

I fished both of these lakes in the '70's and '80's, they were awesome fisheries back then, and we limited our catch back then. I always wondered why Lakes considered Trophy lakes had a catch limit. Didn't make sense then and doesn't today. These lakes should be catch are release only, same as Wab is today.

BW
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-13-2018, 02:17 PM
Talking moose's Avatar
Talking moose Talking moose is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: McBride/Prince George
Posts: 14,520
Default

Little fun fact for anyone that didn’t know.... touchwood used to be a lake trout lake. (Lesser slave lake also had trout)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-13-2018, 03:18 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andyandrew65 View Post
(burbot/whitefish are not possible to catch during summer
That is correct. Everyone stay away from my....I mean our whitefish lake. Too hard don't try
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-13-2018, 03:34 PM
andyandrew65 andyandrew65 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher View Post
That is correct. Everyone stay away from my....I mean our whitefish lake. Too hard don't try
Yeah you can see pike and walleye chase whitefish after the point during the summer when its glass like on the lake, but thats like 100 feet deep. Fish finder/cameras also showed big whitefish to us in the past but again, its 60 feet+ deep and on a step hill going down. Impossible to set an anchor and fish them out.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-13-2018, 03:47 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andyandrew65 View Post
Yeah you can see pike and walleye chase whitefish after the point during the summer when its glass like on the lake, but thats like 100 feet deep. Fish finder/cameras also showed big whitefish to us in the past but again, its 60 feet+ deep and on a step hill going down. Impossible to set an anchor and fish them out.
Oh ye of little faith.
It can absolutely be done. There is always a way...or ways. I don't intend to do it at that specific lake as there are much bigger ones in my backyard. But the technique will be the same. I'll post back on my luck for sure. I know I'll have success in shallow water but I want to try deeper water this year.

BTW, that is why I really don't chase walleye and pike in open water...more so in the lakes. They are not nearly the challenge of other species. That keeps it a challenge and a heck of a lot of fun!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-13-2018, 07:25 PM
dustinjoels dustinjoels is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 526
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
90% of the fish live in 10% of the water. Yet fisheries on purpose randomly places their nets throughout a lake.

In short I have little support for the netting program especially when it comes to pike. I know of too many examples that are contrary to their data and it primarily comes down to knowing where the fish are. It is easy to go to a lake and not catch a fish if you don't know what you are doing or where to fish.

I believe they need to greatly expand their data collection programs as relying so heavily on this netting data is proving to be ineffective. Case in point they don't do any netting/analysis for perch, whitefish or burbot which was their whole argument at the information sessions for not believing that increasing walleye populations are affecting these other species(even though they had 100 anglers yelling at them all saying they have noticed the same thing...).
I can’t decide what worse, their interpretation of netting data or when they blindly make decisions on lakes with no data.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-14-2018, 09:05 AM
Penner's Avatar
Penner Penner is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andyandrew65 View Post
I have been going to Touchwood lake for nearly 15 years now and I can agree that Pike fishing (walleye has always been 0) has drastically decreased over time. However, that being said I can tell you all that catching a Pike that is over 63cm was never an issue.
There is the issue right there from my seat. Balance is key, you close down a Walleye keep limit in a water body you must close down the Pike keep limit in a water body just the same to keep things equal. One could argue the same of Perch, Whitefish, and Burbot also. Us anglers are a keen bunch and we will adapt quickly and focus on what we can catch/keep. Easy for us to point the finger elsewhere when really, we should be looking in the mirror. Keep limits are in place intended to be a maximum not a quota.

End of day liberal keep limits and us anglers/commercial fishermen greatly diminished fish populations across the province in the 80's and 90's. Us anglers/commercial fishermen have ourselves to blame, the government was to obtuse and to late to the table to prevent it and now SRD is trying to change things and to improve angling opportunities and for the most part from my perspective I feel they certainly have.

In my opinion SRD has (for the most part) only been reactive as opposed to being proactive (wait until the problem has occurred rather than anticipating and getting out in front of it) and to me that is frustrating. It can't be easy playing Mother Nature and doing it with limited resources.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-14-2018, 09:17 AM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penner View Post
In my opinion SRD has (for the most part) only been reactive as opposed to being proactive (wait until the problem has occurred rather than anticipating and getting out in front of it) and to me that is frustrating.
Yup and the main problem now is that they keep running around in circles chasing their tail. Recover one lake while hurting 3 others.

They have successfully recovered walleye populations in many lakes but at the same time have destroyed pike and perch populations across the province in doing so.

They need to come up with a plan that can sustain fishing pressure for all species in all waterbodies. They can't keep playing recovery changing their focus from lake to lake and species to species. As you say they need to start being proactive instead of reactive, address the issue before it is an issue not wait for the netting data to scream houston we have a problem...
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-17-2018, 06:01 PM
Walleye101's Avatar
Walleye101 Walleye101 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 763
Default

Why doesn't the province adopt a slot size limit on lakes to thin out some of the smaller fish that decimate baitfish populations? Throw the big ones back instead of keeping them!
__________________
It's all fun and games until someone loses a WALLEYE
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-17-2018, 06:21 PM
Bushleague Bushleague is offline
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 3,555
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penner View Post
There is the issue right there from my seat. Balance is key, you close down a Walleye keep limit in a water body you must close down the Pike keep limit in a water body just the same to keep things equal. One could argue the same of Perch, Whitefish, and Burbot also. Us anglers are a keen bunch and we will adapt quickly and focus on what we can catch/keep. Easy for us to point the finger elsewhere when really, we should be looking in the mirror. Keep limits are in place intended to be a maximum not a quota.

End of day liberal keep limits and us anglers/commercial fishermen greatly diminished fish populations across the province in the 80's and 90's. Us anglers/commercial fishermen have ourselves to blame, the government was to obtuse and to late to the table to prevent it and now SRD is trying to change things and to improve angling opportunities and for the most part from my perspective I feel they certainly have.

In my opinion SRD has (for the most part) only been reactive as opposed to being proactive (wait until the problem has occurred rather than anticipating and getting out in front of it) and to me that is frustrating. It can't be easy playing Mother Nature and doing it with limited resources.
Exactly, Balance is key. Which IMO is why the new walleye closures on Utikima and other lakes in the area are most likely going to result in worse fishing across the board.

The other criticisim I have is that SRD admits that they have no idea how the commercial fishery closure is going to affect things, why not wait 5 years and see how things settle out now that the nets are no longer in play.

When I look at the closures across the board, big picture, I see a business move and not a conservation move. If you look at what little is left open you are looking at a few high pressure lakes like Slave, Cold, and Calling. Putting Some of these lakes on tags has been brought up in the past but there has been no need... well now you are about to see more pressure concentrated on these lakes. IMO they are manufacturing a problem that will be solved by tags.

My prediction, in 5 years SRD will be proposing tags on Slave, Calling, possibly Cold as well due to a spike in fishing pressure. Many of the lakes that have seen closures in my area a generally marginal fisheries that tend to winterkill regularly, while lakes with better potential that are less popular were never even considered, I can see no reason for some of the closures other than to re-direct pressure to key body's of water.
__________________
If the good lord didnt want me to ride a four wheeler with no shirt on, then how come my nipples grow back after every wipeout?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-18-2018, 10:24 AM
pikeman06 pikeman06 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,615
Default

The wallies should be put and take like rainbows. Fish them out and restock them. The 4 or 5 years it takes them to grow to a catchable size again might give the pike and perch a chance to get their feet back on the ground. Any moron knows a lake full of wallies is like a bathtub full of piranhas. They will never let pike or perch and to a lesser degree whitefish come back as long as they are the main predator in the lake. It's not about ignorance or poor management it's about dollars and the pathetic tag system they have that generates a little revenue. What has the government done for you lately that was in YOUR better interest? ? Exactly.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-18-2018, 12:08 PM
dustinjoels dustinjoels is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 526
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikeman06 View Post
The wallies should be put and take like rainbows. Fish them out and restock them. The 4 or 5 years it takes them to grow to a catchable size again might give the pike and perch a chance to get their feet back on the ground. Any moron knows a lake full of wallies is like a bathtub full of piranhas. They will never let pike or perch and to a lesser degree whitefish come back as long as they are the main predator in the lake. It's not about ignorance or poor management it's about dollars and the pathetic tag system they have that generates a little revenue. What has the government done for you lately that was in YOUR better interest? ? Exactly.
I agree with the put and take. Just have a few lakes close to major centres like sylvan, gull, wab (if water is deemed safe), La Nonne, 2 southern reservoirs, and Calling and make them put and take for walleye. Stock these lakes every year with walleye and allow for generous retention. It would drastically reduce the pressure province wide.

I’m sure there would be some people who would be upset about not being able to catch pike, whitefish, or perch in those lakes but so be it. A few sacrifices for the greater good.

Apart from the put and take lakes, do not stock walleye anywhere else in the province. Just let the lakes be. If the lake can’t sustain a walleye population without repeatedly stocking the lake, then maybe it just becomes a great perch, pike, or whitefish fishery and there’s nothing wrong with that.

The put and take system would make the fisherman who want to be able to easily go and catch and keep some walleye happy and would make the fishermen who are fed up with SRD’s focus province wide being solely on walleye happy.

Anyways that’s just my two cents. It’ll never happen.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-18-2018, 04:07 PM
fish99's Avatar
fish99 fish99 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: pigeon lake
Posts: 1,570
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dustinjoels View Post
I agree with the put and take. Just have a few lakes close to major centres like sylvan, gull, wab (if water is deemed safe), La Nonne, 2 southern reservoirs, and Calling and make them put and take for walleye. Stock these lakes every year with walleye and allow for generous retention. It would drastically reduce the pressure province wide.

I’m sure there would be some people who would be upset about not being able to catch pike, whitefish, or perch in those lakes but so be it. A few sacrifices for the greater good.

Apart from the put and take lakes, do not stock walleye anywhere else in the province. Just let the lakes be. If the lake can’t sustain a walleye population without repeatedly stocking the lake, then maybe it just becomes a great perch, pike, or whitefish fishery and there’s nothing wrong with that.

The put and take system would make the fisherman who want to be able to easily go and catch and keep some walleye happy and would make the fishermen who are fed up with SRD’s focus province wide being solely on walleye happy.

Anyways that’s just my two cents. It’ll never happen.
great idea its a win for everyone.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-19-2018, 08:11 AM
Penner's Avatar
Penner Penner is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dustinjoels View Post
I agree with the put and take. Just have a few lakes close to major centres like sylvan, gull, wab (if water is deemed safe), La Nonne, 2 southern reservoirs, and Calling and make them put and take for walleye. Stock these lakes every year with walleye and allow for generous retention. It would drastically reduce the pressure province wide.

I’m sure there would be some people who would be upset about not being able to catch pike, whitefish, or perch in those lakes but so be it. A few sacrifices for the greater good.

Apart from the put and take lakes, do not stock walleye anywhere else in the province. Just let the lakes be. If the lake can’t sustain a walleye population without repeatedly stocking the lake, then maybe it just becomes a great perch, pike, or whitefish fishery and there’s nothing wrong with that.

The put and take system would make the fisherman who want to be able to easily go and catch and keep some walleye happy and would make the fishermen who are fed up with SRD’s focus province wide being solely on walleye happy.

Anyways that’s just my two cents. It’ll never happen.
Nice idea but the issue is that firstly it is extremely costly to raise/stock Walleye and secondly Walleye stocking in water bodies where fish populations are already established are likely only going to provide real expensive fish food. It took years and a gazillion Walleye fry going into Lac La Biche to re-establish the Walleye with the ultimate intention being to establish a naturally reproducing population.

Arm chair fisherman need to understand stocking Trout in water bodies naturally void of fish and stocking Walleye in water bodies with natural fish populations are 2 completely different games. It isn’t that simple.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-19-2018, 08:22 AM
Talking moose's Avatar
Talking moose Talking moose is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: McBride/Prince George
Posts: 14,520
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penner View Post
Nice idea but the issue is that firstly it is extremely costly to raise/stock Walleye and secondly Walleye stocking in water bodies where fish populations are already established are likely only going to provide real expensive fish food. It took years and a gazillion Walleye fry going into Lac La Biche to re-establish the Walleye with the ultimate intention being to establish a naturally reproducing population.

Arm chair fisherman need to understand stocking Trout in water bodies naturally void of fish and stocking Walleye in water bodies with natural fish populations are 2 completely different games. It isn’t that simple.
Yup
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-19-2018, 06:09 PM
RavYak's Avatar
RavYak RavYak is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: West Edmonton
Posts: 5,174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penner View Post
Nice idea but the issue is that firstly it is extremely costly to raise/stock Walleye and secondly Walleye stocking in water bodies where fish populations are already established are likely only going to provide real expensive fish food. It took years and a gazillion Walleye fry going into Lac La Biche to re-establish the Walleye with the ultimate intention being to establish a naturally reproducing population.

Arm chair fisherman need to understand stocking Trout in water bodies naturally void of fish and stocking Walleye in water bodies with natural fish populations are 2 completely different games. It isn’t that simple.
What fisheries needs to do is rethink their walleye stocking program...

200 million walleye fry were practically wasted on Lac La Biche... They could have used those same walleye to stock almost every lake in the province but instead they dumped it into a single lake... The walleye were then left as C&R in hopes the population would take hold but once again Lac La Biche has shown to have recruitment issues and instead of recovering the population it appears like they primarily succeeded in filling the locals nets and the odd person that will be able to fill a tag before they are gone again...

So what did fisheries accomplish with that stocking program? A put and take fishery for the local native population? What a waste of money... If the natives want to net their lakes into oblivion then let them have that lake and they can learn to take care of it like their ancestors used to...

Saskatchewan stocks walleye across the province and maintains walleye populations in those lakes(many of which have recruitment issues) by stocking 5-20 million each per year. They could maintain their walleye stocking program(of over 40 lakes) for around 15 years with the amount of walleye that were wasted in Lac La Biche...

We literally spent more trying and failing to recover a single lake then what our neighbours spent to maintain multiple lakes. That isn't even taking into account the number of walleye stocked in a few other lakes as well(Wabamun for example).

Spread the fish around. Instead of putting 10-200 million walleye in single lakes put 100k-1m walleye in each lake to help offset the poor recruitment that we know happens in many of these lakes.

You won't see pigeon like numbers(except in lakes that don't have recruitment issues) but you will see steady populations in lakes that are not maintaining populations even with current C&R "recovery" regulations.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-21-2018, 09:48 PM
Fishtracker Fishtracker is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 215
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
What fisheries needs to do is rethink their walleye stocking program...

200 million walleye fry were practically wasted on Lac La Biche... They could have used those same walleye to stock almost every lake in the province but instead they dumped it into a single lake... The walleye were then left as C&R in hopes the population would take hold but once again Lac La Biche has shown to have recruitment issues and instead of recovering the population it appears like they primarily succeeded in filling the locals nets and the odd person that will be able to fill a tag before they are gone again...

So what did fisheries accomplish with that stocking program? A put and take fishery for the local native population? What a waste of money... If the natives want to net their lakes into oblivion then let them have that lake and they can learn to take care of it like their ancestors used to...

Saskatchewan stocks walleye across the province and maintains walleye populations in those lakes(many of which have recruitment issues) by stocking 5-20 million each per year. They could maintain their walleye stocking program(of over 40 lakes) for around 15 years with the amount of walleye that were wasted in Lac La Biche...

We literally spent more trying and failing to recover a single lake then what our neighbours spent to maintain multiple lakes. That isn't even taking into account the number of walleye stocked in a few other lakes as well(Wabamun for example).

Spread the fish around. Instead of putting 10-200 million walleye in single lakes put 100k-1m walleye in each lake to help offset the poor recruitment that we know happens in many of these lakes.

You won't see pigeon like numbers(except in lakes that don't have recruitment issues) but you will see steady populations in lakes that are not maintaining populations even with current C&R "recovery" regulations.
Agreed. Sask is willing to stock walleye into their lakes. Which they probably don't really have to do as their fisherman/lake ratio and tax dollar resource is much less then Alberta. Topped off with much less fishing pressure then Alberta. By the way, Sask also stocks pike, perch & trout as well!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-21-2018, 11:12 PM
dustinjoels dustinjoels is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 526
Default

One of the main problem with Alberta is the allocation of funds. You hear so often that in order to get more funds for fish and wildlife in Alberta the licensing and tag costs need to be increased. Basically there is a users pay mentality. Meanwhile Saskatchewan collects way less money due to way fewer users by way of licensing and tags, but as a whole put a larger % of tax dollars towards managing fish and wildlife for the enjoyment of the people. To be clear I don’t have any data to support this, just seems a reasonable assumption based on population and license/tag prices and a comparison in what programs you see Saskatchewan implementing vs. Alberta.

It irks me to even think about some of the things that receive government funding in Alberta when fish and wildlife is so under funded. But just look at this years fishing regs and the government outright says they’re doing a fantastic job of fisheries management.
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 09:31 AM.


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