Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fishing Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-20-2019, 03:03 PM
PeterSL PeterSL is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Beaumont
Posts: 89
Default Recreational Fishing Survey

The Survey of Recreational Fishing in Canada, 2015 , produced by the Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans every 5 years has just been released - just 4 years late as usual. The next one is due in 2020 but don't expect to see it till 2024.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/stats/rec/c...index-eng.html


Some interesting data e.g.

The average number of days fished per angler was 15 days compared with 13 days in 2010

Anglers caught over 194 million fish of all species and retained nearly 59 million

42% of Canadian anglers were in the 45-64 age group, whereas only 28% of Canadians, in general, were in the same age range. The relative percentage of Canadian anglers 65 years of age and over was higher in 2015 than 2010, 14% and 11%, respectively.

Walleye was the most predominant species caught nationally, representing 26% of the total catch, followed by trout, pike, perch and bass.

All anglers spent over $2.5 billion in direct recreational fishing expenditures in 2015

In 2015, anglers invested $5.3 billion in boats, motors, camping gear, special vehicles, real estate and other durable goods related to their recreational fishing activities

. . . . .and more

PeterSL
Northern Lights Fly Fishers/TUC
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-20-2019, 09:30 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Thanks Peter. Very interesting stuff.

I focused in on the number of anglers by region. Alberta is certainly trending higher than any other province. I wonder if the Government is to blame for that too.
Well, other than NWT but those are in a different scale, size wise.

Manitoba
7% increase from 2005 to 2010, 16% increase from 2010 to 2015 and 24% increase overall

Saskatchewan
19% increase from 2005 to 2010, 2% increase from 2010 to 2015 and 21% increase overall

Alberta
24% increase from 2005 to 2010, 27% increase from 2010 to 2015 and 58% increase overall

British Columbia Freshwater
12% increase from 2005 to 2010, 5% increase from 2010 to 2015 and 17% increase overall

Gee, does anyone see a trend here for Alberta. The largest increase in anglers and the least amount of fishable water. ...
....
...
must be the bios and F&W fault for the limits in AB.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-20-2019, 11:45 PM
Brandonkop's Avatar
Brandonkop Brandonkop is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: BC/Alberta
Posts: 2,026
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher View Post
Thanks Peter. Very interesting stuff.



I focused in on the number of anglers by region. Alberta is certainly trending higher than any other province. I wonder if the Government is to blame for that too.

Well, other than NWT but those are in a different scale, size wise.



Manitoba

7% increase from 2005 to 2010, 16% increase from 2010 to 2015 and 24% increase overall



Saskatchewan

19% increase from 2005 to 2010, 2% increase from 2010 to 2015 and 21% increase overall



Alberta

24% increase from 2005 to 2010, 27% increase from 2010 to 2015 and 58% increase overall



British Columbia Freshwater

12% increase from 2005 to 2010, 5% increase from 2010 to 2015 and 17% increase overall



Gee, does anyone see a trend here for Alberta. The largest increase in anglers and the least amount of fishable water. ...

....

...

must be the bios and F&W fault for the limits in AB.
Good try there but fisheries have been closing Alberta lakes since 1996. Long before this survey range began. About 10 years before. Despite it being up 58% in recent years it is still less than the number of licensed anglers in 1980s. In 2017 there were 294,037 licensed anglers. In 1985 there were 343,310.

So please stop listening to these people who say there are no fish because of our population growth and that there are so many more anglers because it just isnt true!!! Here are the facts. Make up your own assumptions.

I think this shows a somewhat better picture of historical data and catch rates prior to closures. Looks like they were catching and retaining way more fish in the 70s and early 90s. By 2005 licensed angler days had dropped in half of what it was in 1985. Number of fish retained in 1980 10.6 million, 1985 went to 11.2 million (that means the 5 years in between you can assume it was around the same). By 2005 10 years after closures, half as many fishermen days and only 1.7 million retained. So from 1975 to 1995 they were taking 5 to 10 million fish home a year.... and somehow they were still able to do it year after year..... now the lakes have been closed for 25 years and the fish are still disappearing even though nobody can take any fish home????

Could it be that fisheries decision to protect walleye has actually collapsed the forage, perch and pike populations and may have little to do with population of anglers and fish retention as history seems to indicate?

I'm no fisheries biologist but sure seems fishy to me.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
__________________

The Fishing Doctors Adventures - You May Watch More Than You Bargained For, haha!
https://www.youtube.com/TheFishingDoctorsAdventures
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-21-2019, 04:30 AM
wind drift wind drift is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YEG
Posts: 716
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandonkop View Post
Good try there but fisheries have been closing Alberta lakes since 1996. Long before this survey range began. About 10 years before. Despite it being up 58% in recent years it is still less than the number of licensed anglers in 1980s. In 2017 there were 294,037 licensed anglers. In 1985 there were 343,310.

So please stop listening to these people who say there are no fish because of our population growth and that there are so many more anglers because it just isnt true!!! Here are the facts. Make up your own assumptions.

I think this shows a somewhat better picture of historical data and catch rates prior to closures. Looks like they were catching and retaining way more fish in the 70s and early 90s. By 2005 licensed angler days had dropped in half of what it was in 1985. Number of fish retained in 1980 10.6 million, 1985 went to 11.2 million (that means the 5 years in between you can assume it was around the same). By 2005 10 years after closures, half as many fishermen days and only 1.7 million retained. So from 1975 to 1995 they were taking 5 to 10 million fish home a year.... and somehow they were still able to do it year after year..... now the lakes have been closed for 25 years and the fish are still disappearing even though nobody can take any fish home????

Could it be that fisheries decision to protect walleye has actually collapsed the forage, perch and pike populations and may have little to do with population of anglers and fish retention as history seems to indicate?

I'm no fisheries biologist but sure seems fishy to me.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
It’s easy to revise history to support a narrative. Heres’s another perspective: Alberta’s fisheries were collapsed by overfishing prior to 1990. The high harvests over those years were not sustainable, especially as there were no size limits in place to prevent young fish from being removed before they spawned. Anglers persisted despite declining fishing success for years, but finally started to drop out by the 90s because the fishing was so poor. This is well documented (https://bgs.ucalgary.ca/files/bgs/Po...e_Collapse.pdf).

Finally, in the mid 90s, action was taken to recover the fisheries, starting with walleye. Most lakes went catch and release (which is not closed) and minimum size limits were put in place to allow the fish to replace themselves before being removed. The next action was to recover pike, which was just about as bad, but the powers-that-were decided that anglers shouldn’t be expected to forsake all pike harvest on top of walleye, so as consolation, very few pike fisheries went catch and release, instead generally going to a limit of 1-3 fish over 63cm. Perch got pretty much no attention. That decision has consequences we are still dealing with today.

Time passes. Recovery happens. In just 10 years, Walleye fisheries get way better. Some spectacularly. Pike, not so much. Perch generally get even worse. Angler numbers increase, eventually getting back to 1980s levels by 2015. Lots of folks smiling and having great fishing. For most anglers, the benchmark has shifted. The crappy walleye fishing during the collapse years is forgotten and it becomes normal to catch dozens a day. With more walleye being caught, pressure to allow harvest increases. Still confronted by the basic dilemma of too many folks wanting to harvest a fish, the bios come up with an innovative solution to allow controlled harvest at some lakes: special harvest licences. That move is met with mixed views, but becomes more popular with time.

More time passes and perspectives shift more. Collapsed walleye fisheries are just a memory. Some new anglers never experienced them. Noticing the gap between good walleye fishing and less good pike fishing, the new problem becomes ‘too many’ walleye in the minds of some. The status gap between walleye compared to pike and perch widens. Fisheries bios are criticized for mismanagement, after having shown how effective the recovery actions can be. Rather than get behind efforts to finally take the action needed to recover pike, critics condemn the bios for ‘closing’ pike fisheries rather than increasing walleye harvest, which is popularly thought to be the real cause of low pike numbers. The AFGA gets upset and calls for a science review. Pike recovery is delayed further. Perch management is barely on the radar screen.

So, here we are. Still dealing with the same basic dilemma of many anglers wanting to harvest fish from too few lakes. There are walleye in the account to spend, but they have to be shared amongst many mouths. How do we keep history in focus and use what we should have learned to make good decisions today? I bet the bios have some good answers. The ones I talk to sound like they know what they’re doing. Maybe we should get behind them. Hopefully, we can get some pike fisheries recovered and then move on to perch.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-21-2019, 06:13 AM
dodger's Avatar
dodger dodger is online now
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,342
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandonkop View Post
Good try there but fisheries have been closing Alberta lakes since 1996. Long before this survey range began. About 10 years before. Despite it being up 58% in recent years it is still less than the number of licensed anglers in 1980s. In 2017 there were 294,037 licensed anglers. In 1985 there were 343,310.

So please stop listening to these people who say there are no fish because of our population growth and that there are so many more anglers because it just isnt true!!! Here are the facts. Make up your own assumptions.

I think this shows a somewhat better picture of historical data and catch rates prior to closures. Looks like they were catching and retaining way more fish in the 70s and early 90s. By 2005 licensed angler days had dropped in half of what it was in 1985. Number of fish retained in 1980 10.6 million, 1985 went to 11.2 million (that means the 5 years in between you can assume it was around the same). By 2005 10 years after closures, half as many fishermen days and only 1.7 million retained. So from 1975 to 1995 they were taking 5 to 10 million fish home a year.... and somehow they were still able to do it year after year..... now the lakes have been closed for 25 years and the fish are still disappearing even though nobody can take any fish home????

Could it be that fisheries decision to protect walleye has actually collapsed the forage, perch and pike populations and may have little to do with population of anglers and fish retention as history seems to indicate?

I'm no fisheries biologist but sure seems fishy to me.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
Yep ! Good post.

Dodger
__________________
Freedom comes with responsibility and integrity. Not stupidity and self entitlement.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-21-2019, 10:35 AM
Brandonkop's Avatar
Brandonkop Brandonkop is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: BC/Alberta
Posts: 2,026
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wind drift View Post
It’s easy to revise history to support a narrative. Heres’s another perspective: Alberta’s fisheries were collapsed by overfishing prior to 1990. The high harvests over those years were not sustainable, especially as there were no size limits in place to prevent young fish from being removed before they spawned. Anglers persisted despite declining fishing success for years, but finally started to drop out by the 90s because the fishing was so poor. This is well documented (https://bgs.ucalgary.ca/files/bgs/Po...e_Collapse.pdf).



Finally, in the mid 90s, action was taken to recover the fisheries, starting with walleye. Most lakes went catch and release (which is not closed) and minimum size limits were put in place to allow the fish to replace themselves before being removed. The next action was to recover pike, which was just about as bad, but the powers-that-were decided that anglers shouldn’t be expected to forsake all pike harvest on top of walleye, so as consolation, very few pike fisheries went catch and release, instead generally going to a limit of 1-3 fish over 63cm. Perch got pretty much no attention. That decision has consequences we are still dealing with today.



Time passes. Recovery happens. In just 10 years, Walleye fisheries get way better. Some spectacularly. Pike, not so much. Perch generally get even worse. Angler numbers increase, eventually getting back to 1980s levels by 2015. Lots of folks smiling and having great fishing. For most anglers, the benchmark has shifted. The crappy walleye fishing during the collapse years is forgotten and it becomes normal to catch dozens a day. With more walleye being caught, pressure to allow harvest increases. Still confronted by the basic dilemma of too many folks wanting to harvest a fish, the bios come up with an innovative solution to allow controlled harvest at some lakes: special harvest licences. That move is met with mixed views, but becomes more popular with time.



More time passes and perspectives shift more. Collapsed walleye fisheries are just a memory. Some new anglers never experienced them. Noticing the gap between good walleye fishing and less good pike fishing, the new problem becomes ‘too many’ walleye in the minds of some. The status gap between walleye compared to pike and perch widens. Fisheries bios are criticized for mismanagement, after having shown how effective the recovery actions can be. Rather than get behind efforts to finally take the action needed to recover pike, critics condemn the bios for ‘closing’ pike fisheries rather than increasing walleye harvest, which is popularly thought to be the real cause of low pike numbers. The AFGA gets upset and calls for a science review. Pike recovery is delayed further. Perch management is barely on the radar screen.



So, here we are. Still dealing with the same basic dilemma of many anglers wanting to harvest fish from too few lakes. There are walleye in the account to spend, but they have to be shared amongst many mouths. How do we keep history in focus and use what we should have learned to make good decisions today? I bet the bios have some good answers. The ones I talk to sound like they know what they’re doing. Maybe we should get behind them. Hopefully, we can get some pike fisheries recovered and then move on to perch.
I agree, but have to remember the pike limit back then was 10 any size, walleye limit 3 over 15 inches. What would our fisheries look like today with regulations like the rest of North America with selective slot size harvests? Allowing some fish to get to the spawning size and then larger fish to stay in the fishery. Look at Calling lake. Has been open as the so called experimental lake the way I see it. Still open for retention with actually quite a large slot. Not sure why they wont adapt this strategy to more water bodies to reduce biomass and improve quality. Sure there will be less walleye, but there would be more minnows, perch, pike and fatter walleye that have more successful spawning. It's hard to get behind biologists that use bad science and sustainability numbers that are not on par with the rest of the country. The set benchmark may be unattainable.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
__________________

The Fishing Doctors Adventures - You May Watch More Than You Bargained For, haha!
https://www.youtube.com/TheFishingDoctorsAdventures
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-21-2019, 11:53 AM
wind drift wind drift is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: YEG
Posts: 716
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandonkop View Post
I agree, but have to remember the pike limit back then was 10 any size, walleye limit 3 over 15 inches. What would our fisheries look like today with regulations like the rest of North America with selective slot size harvests? Allowing some fish to get to the spawning size and then larger fish to stay in the fishery. Look at Calling lake. Has been open as the so called experimental lake the way I see it. Still open for retention with actually quite a large slot. Not sure why they wont adapt this strategy to more water bodies to reduce biomass and improve quality. Sure there will be less walleye, but there would be more minnows, perch, pike and fatter walleye that have more successful spawning. It's hard to get behind biologists that use bad science and sustainability numbers that are not on par with the rest of the country. The set benchmark may be unattainable.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
The answer is that Alberta is not like other places. Drawing comparisons to other places based on assumptions that aren't tested is bad science - its actually not science at all. The pressure here is extremely high. So high, that studies on slot limits showed that too few fish escaped harvest slots to be sustainable. Harvest-slot limits work only when enough fish make it through to be protected again, so either open-access pressure has to be low enough or some other way to control harvest or pressure has to be used (e.g. tags - which are really a slot-limit approach with limited participation). There is info on this as well: https://albertaep.wordpress.com/2017...ience-of-fish/

https://albertaep.wordpress.com/2017...r-fishin-hole/

The thinking that reducing walleye will make more pike and perch is not sound, as that's based on an untested assumption that pike and perch are not being limited by other factors, such as fishing mortality or even habitat changes.

It's easy to make assumptions. It takes a lot of work to turn assumptions into hypotheses and then test them in a properly designed study.

There seems to be a view that the bios really don't want to allow fish harvest and are doing what they can to prevent it, like some kind of conspiracy. I just don't buy that. Every bio I've asked tells me they see fish harvest as a sign that they've been successful in either recovering or maintaining fisheries.

The bios of today are well-trained. They want to make fisheries better. I support them.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-21-2019, 12:21 PM
Brandonkop's Avatar
Brandonkop Brandonkop is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: BC/Alberta
Posts: 2,026
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wind drift View Post
The answer is that Alberta is not like other places. Drawing comparisons to other places based on assumptions that aren't tested is bad science - its actually not science at all. The pressure here is extremely high. So high, that studies on slot limits showed that too few fish escaped harvest slots to be sustainable. Harvest-slot limits work only when enough fish make it through to be protected again, so either open-access pressure has to be low enough or some other way to control harvest or pressure has to be used (e.g. tags - which are really a slot-limit approach with limited participation). There is info on this as well: https://albertaep.wordpress.com/2017...ience-of-fish/



https://albertaep.wordpress.com/2017...r-fishin-hole/



The thinking that reducing walleye will make more pike and perch is not sound, as that's based on an untested assumption that pike and perch are not being limited by other factors, such as fishing mortality or even habitat changes.



It's easy to make assumptions. It takes a lot of work to turn assumptions into hypotheses and then test them in a properly designed study.



There seems to be a view that the bios really don't want to allow fish harvest and are doing what they can to prevent it, like some kind of conspiracy. I just don't buy that. Every bio I've asked tells me they see fish harvest as a sign that they've been successful in either recovering or maintaining fisheries.



The bios of today are well-trained. They want to make fisheries better. I support them.
I know I've been told the same thing by biologists in AB that slots dont work because not enough will get through the slot. They explained Alberta anglers as vacuums sucking up every available fish in the slot. You mention research. Do you know where to find this and where it was done? I do not recall when the lakes in Alberta had slot sizes for walleye so that they could do the so called studies you mentioned in the province. I know of one lake that has a slot size in alberta (if there are others I am not familiar with those), Calling lake, and it actually is still open to a slot size limit with walleye retention and plenty of fish over the slot size as well being caught. So it just seems hard to believe that slots dont work in Alberta when the only example I know about is seemingly functional. Still the perch and pike collapsed there unfortunately. Maybe they should trial a slot on pike when it stabilizes.

I wouldnt say a fisherman just has assumptions. When someone fishes the same lake for 30 years, numerous days a year they know what is happening with the populations better than the scientists who test net it once every 5 years.

Fishermen need to not be so hard on themselves. We are out there every day doing far more population studies than any biologist ever could. If people were able to log the number, length and species of fish they were catching into a database I'm sure that would be a powerful scientific resource.

It's not about retention of fish, I'd just like to see healthy balanced fisheries that weren't so lopsided in focus.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
__________________

The Fishing Doctors Adventures - You May Watch More Than You Bargained For, haha!
https://www.youtube.com/TheFishingDoctorsAdventures
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-21-2019, 12:30 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandonkop View Post
Good try there but fisheries have been closing Alberta lakes since 1996. Long before this survey range began. About 10 years before. Despite it being up 58% in recent years it is still less than the number of licensed anglers in 1980s. In 2017 there were 294,037 licensed anglers. In 1985 there were 343,310.

So please stop listening to these people who say there are no fish because of our population growth and that there are so many more anglers because it just isnt true!!! Here are the facts. Make up your own assumptions.

I think this shows a somewhat better picture of historical data and catch rates prior to closures. Looks like they were catching and retaining way more fish in the 70s and early 90s. By 2005 licensed angler days had dropped in half of what it was in 1985. Number of fish retained in 1980 10.6 million, 1985 went to 11.2 million (that means the 5 years in between you can assume it was around the same). By 2005 10 years after closures, half as many fishermen days and only 1.7 million retained. So from 1975 to 1995 they were taking 5 to 10 million fish home a year.... and somehow they were still able to do it year after year..... now the lakes have been closed for 25 years and the fish are still disappearing even though nobody can take any fish home????

Could it be that fisheries decision to protect walleye has actually collapsed the forage, perch and pike populations and may have little to do with population of anglers and fish retention as history seems to indicate?

I'm no fisheries biologist but sure seems fishy to me.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
No, not a good try, stating a fact about AB increasing more than any other province. By far! If you cannot make that correlation, I don't know where your head is at.

Take a chill pill Brandon. I know you are passionate about this sport. Maybe you should think about a career change and become a bio since you seem to have pinpointed the issue from your armchair. I appreciate you have an opinion, so do I.

It will be interesting to see what the 2020 number is for AB anglers.

Did you ever stop and think that maybe, just maybe the overall biomass of fish in the 70s and 80s was incredibly large compared to today. A cumulative impact of decades of harvest ends us up here.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-21-2019, 12:50 PM
ROA ROA is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your stairs
Posts: 633
Default

The biggest reason people are so ****y as of late is the stupid cash grab/lazy tag system and the whole shut down/ protect/ ban type authoritarian leftist bull**** Canadians are known for. A lot of the anger is not about the actual fishing quality. It’s the result of the leftist bull****.

You look at places outside our leftist authoritarian ideology system (places like in lots of the US states) and the whole idea is to build/ repair/ fix. Actual work done to enhance. People here are so brainwashed and stupid that something so small as putting tiger trout rather than rainbow trout into a pond become a big deal and the govt so inept they can’t even get the limits right for it. Absolutely absurd. Meanwhile places like Texas have things so far beond our ****ty trout pond arguments like award programs to bring in a live 10lbs plus large mouth for breeding stock to actually build and enhance.

Alberta is full of idiots, and our university’s pump out even worse idiots to run things so this is what we get.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-21-2019, 01:21 PM
Brandonkop's Avatar
Brandonkop Brandonkop is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: BC/Alberta
Posts: 2,026
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNAPFisher View Post
No, not a good try, stating a fact about AB increasing more than any other province. By far! If you cannot make that correlation, I don't know where your head is at.



Take a chill pill Brandon. I know you are passionate about this sport. Maybe you should think about a career change and become a bio since you seem to have pinpointed the issue from your armchair. I appreciate you have an opinion, so do I.



It will be interesting to see what the 2020 number is for AB anglers.



Did you ever stop and think that maybe, just maybe the overall biomass of fish in the 70s and 80s was incredibly large compared to today. A cumulative impact of decades of harvest ends us up here.
I was showing that this is not a historic 58% increase in anglers, but in comparison to 2005. Compared to 1985 it's a decrease. People twist the numbers to look however they want, that's all I'm trying to show.

100% agree there are major environmental factors at play and we have lost many lakes to falling water levels and winter/ summer kills. A sad state of affairs. Same thing is occurring on the coast, collapse of Pacific salmon is happening before our eyes. Fishermen once again being blamed as cheapest measure. Stop fishing because dealing with the actual issues like managing predator numbers and restoring lost habitat would cost too much and hurt the tree huggers to kill a few seals.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
__________________

The Fishing Doctors Adventures - You May Watch More Than You Bargained For, haha!
https://www.youtube.com/TheFishingDoctorsAdventures
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-21-2019, 04:27 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandonkop View Post
I was showing that this is not a historic 58% increase in anglers, but in comparison to 2005. Compared to 1985 it's a decrease. People twist the numbers to look however they want, that's all I'm trying to show.

100% agree there are major environmental factors at play and we have lost many lakes to falling water levels and winter/ summer kills. A sad state of affairs. Same thing is occurring on the coast, collapse of Pacific salmon is happening before our eyes. Fishermen once again being blamed as cheapest measure. Stop fishing because dealing with the actual issues like managing predator numbers and restoring lost habitat would cost too much and hurt the tree huggers to kill a few seals.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
I appreciate the past numbers you included. Thanks.

By the way, nothing being twisted here. Simply showing a different trend in AB from the other provinces which surely will not help the situation. Who knows for 2020, it could be lower than 2015 due to reduced limits
I will be curious for sure.

I was going to mention the low water levels in some areas and even the West Coast. So yeah, we are thinking along the same lines. Lots of contributing factors.

As for blame the fishermen or angler, I understand why you say that but I see it as inevitable of all users. Commercial and the like.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-21-2019, 11:18 PM
Drewski Canuck Drewski Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,918
Default Just talking crazy here...

If the AB Government recognizes the increased number of fishermen with increased fishing pressure, could there be a DEMAND for a form of Recreation?

You know, kind of like campgrounds, and Provincial Parks, and bike paths, and pools and ball parks, etc?

You know, like an important form of outdoor recreation which is highly valued by a significant amount of Alberta Citizens?

You know, like a whole bunch of people who are pouring money into the economy through their outdoor pursuits?

You know, like Fishermen?

Wouldn't it be about time that Alberta enhances the fish populations of these lakes with an increased fish stocking program? I know, there are a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians that don't see the value in our form of outdoor recreation, but obviously they are aware of it the way they count the details in minutia. They also are eager to ignore the economic contribution as well.

The money is in the General Revenue Account for the support of this tax paying user group.

I am sick and tired of the Bios getting on the Board saying that Fishermen are the problem. I suppose if we all stop fishing, that would suit them fine. Of course, the economic impact, and the alternate recreation facilities that the Province would need, would cost them as well.

Instead, how about enhancing the populations by stocking fish for the fishermen to utilize? Other jurisdictions have considerably stronger stocking programs than Alberta, and can meet the demand through enhancement.

Fishermen are no less entitled to Government support than a lot of other user groups that do not pay for the resources that they use.

Then again, I'm just talking crazy here ...

Drewski
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-22-2019, 12:48 AM
CanadianFisherman's Avatar
CanadianFisherman CanadianFisherman is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Alberta
Posts: 46
Default

There are some points I agree with and some I do not. I do think a change needs to be made though for the future of the sport and those living off it. Someone said my thoughts on another post in here, but look at keep limits and sizes. Pike over 63cm are (No biologist here...) getting to be the better breeders with stronger genes but we keep them. I've seen Pine lake cleaned out over the years, every fish of legal size, every 3 footer, you name it they were kept by guys all over the lake, 3 a piece and now finding a 24" went from an easy norm to almost none existent. Sadly those like me that catch and release 99.9% of the fish we catch just aren't enough to keep up to big groups taking all the big ones home. I think, (again, not a biologist etc...) a keeper size on pike for example in the 18-20" range or something like that would be more beneficial. Look at videos made in the states on youtube, not very often have I come across guys keeping their precious bass, but here every big fish goes home for some guys. Last weekend at Gull, after an extremely slow year a guy pulls up a pike over 3 feet and when I arrived at the lake, I was told he scooted on home with that fish... Big breeder and illegal keep, wish I was there at the time.... I'd be willing to put my name on a "Fishing education program" like for hunting, we could instill some respect and a little more knowledge on the youth since as many have said, "The sport is becoming more and more popular." I do feel to help the future that time should be taken to learn how to care for them, how to hold them, release them. I feel fairly stupid actually as I've fished many many years but it wasn't until the last few years I even knew about that 20 foot depth danger threshold with perch and walleye and what not. Caught many many in the 25 foot depth range and deeper, released them all but had no idea it was likely most of those ones died. Felt sick feeling I played a role in all this all the while thinking I was handling them and treating them with care. Things like that could have easily been taught to me from the start in such a program but I do realize not everyone will agree with me on this, I like to think I'm thinking about the future of the sport.
These are my thoughts, a long winded example and by no means the cure all and only answer but I think it would be a start in the right direction at least. I'll try and check in on this post for everyone's input. I don't really know how but it's all of us that need to help and push to change things. The surveys and things fish and game have been doing are a good start on getting our input, but limited by having to choose between their plans. If there's a group I don't know about that a guy can get involved in to help talk with fish and game or get the fisherman's voice valued more I'd sure be interested in their info. I think many of us would rather see specific sizes and lower keep limits than all out bans and tag systems and then dealing with those that cheat the system. Again, my opinion and hoping some agree lol. Short term pains for long term gains, but with a smart, well thought out and tested/proven plan of action. I feel regardless, for the central Alberta region that there will be a re-coup time necessary at this point and if we want to fish with our kids and grand kids then our opinions and needs need to be heard, and valued for what they are.
On another note, if there is a biologist or similar in here, is there a reason stocked fish don't reproduce? Or is it just a part of the process to hatch them because non spawning fish seems counter productive and rather costly in the long run.
__________________
Let em go, Let em Grow!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-22-2019, 01:59 PM
Drewski Canuck Drewski Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,918
Default

Canadianfisherman,

Stocked Rainbow, Brown and Cutthroat Trout need running water to spawn. Stocked Alberta Lakes typically have no running streams that could spawning populations.

There is some suggestion that a few BC Lakes with active springs are supporting spawning populations of lakebound rainbows, but it is very site specific.

As for Bookies, they fall spawn on gravel in a lake.

But stocking Perch, Pike and Walleye all will reproduce.

Bios ARE WELCOME to explain why they do not raise perch or pike in the hatchery system.

They really cannot see the forest for the trees.

As for Perch, just watch sundancefisher's post of attempts to control perch in their subdivision lake, and it will give you some obvious ideas of a source for Perch for stocking. Simply net in the shallows in the Spring in any number of these urban lakes and transport the Perch to the target lake. Sundancefisher regularly posts his perch cull exploits with more than 6 - 5 gallon pails of perch for a Fike net pull.

If F & W stepped in, and moved these Perch, there would be plenty available to restart perch fishing pretty easy somewhere else.

Two benefits from moving the Perch from Trout ponds: The trout do better in the Donor lake, and the Perch do not stunt and can be moved to enhance an existing perch fishery somewhere else where there is heavier demand.

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THIS CANNOT BE DONE BIOS!!!

As for Walleye, stocking has been done to rehabilitate some lakes like wabamun, and Lac La Biche. No reason why it could not be a regular occurrence for walleye lakes that see alot of pressure and where the population is not naturally reproducing.

Yes, it will cost money. Get over it and make it a priority for the Department.

The fishing pressure is there and will only increase, so why not meet the demand for the resource just like we do with so many other Government services like roads, hospitals, schools, parks, etc.

Drewski
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-22-2019, 03:36 PM
SNAPFisher SNAPFisher is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewski Canuck View Post
If F & W stepped in, and moved these Perch, there would be plenty available to restart perch fishing pretty easy somewhere else.

Two benefits from moving the Perch from Trout ponds: The trout do better in the Donor lake, and the Perch do not stunt and can be moved to enhance an existing perch fishery somewhere else where there is heavier demand.

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THIS CANNOT BE DONE BIOS!!!

Drewski
I like it, great idea
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-23-2019, 04:21 PM
CanadianFisherman's Avatar
CanadianFisherman CanadianFisherman is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Alberta
Posts: 46
Default

Thanks for the explanation Drewski! Makes perfect sense when it's laid out now. I also agree with you on helping out the natural populations in lakes not reproducing well.
__________________
Let em go, Let em Grow!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-23-2019, 04:46 PM
Habfan's Avatar
Habfan Habfan is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,721
Default

I’ve been preaching to this forum about the importance of stocking fish in this province for years, almost all on deaf ears. Slow Clap for you Drewski, well said !
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-25-2019, 05:22 PM
Salavee Salavee is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Parkland County, AB
Posts: 4,249
Default

The Walleye hatchery near Cold Lake worked well as a Walleye re-stocking and enhancement source for the short time it was running. They had a disease problem in the Hatchery and it was permanently shut down. That hatchery alone was a stop- gap reaction to a problem that had been growing for a number of years prior (since about 1970). Alberta seems to have simply too few suitable water bodies and too many annual angler/hours to sustain a viable fishery of any type.

I haven't been involved with the Alberta fishery for over 25 years now but what I can say is that the population structure studies undertaken for a short time by the Western Walleye Council on popular Lakes that held viable Walleye populations at the time, were very informative and may have made the difference.. if they had continued. The current situation is going to be hard to overcome unless a large amount of money becomes available rather quickly. Hope for the best as far as any future retention goes. Just my take over a long timeline.
__________________
When applied by competent people with the right intent, common sense goes a long way.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-25-2019, 05:44 PM
pikergolf's Avatar
pikergolf pikergolf is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11,285
Default

Alberta fisherman wanted walleye, well they got it. The stupidity of it has upset the balance is so many lakes. Fisherman were the ones doing the whining, now we are whining again. The southern irrigation res. were all outstanding pike and white fish fisheries, until the walleye!
__________________
“One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain.”

Thomas Sowell
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 05:26 AM.


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