Wab is dead

[Geezle]

Originally Posted by cube

I fish Wab allot and I can say the decline has not just been this ice season.

Same here...it's been in decline for at least a couple years already.

[Remi3006]

Send the "Fishing Geeks" out to Wab. For a day or two and see how they do, if they come up empty handed I'll believe Wab is "dead". Haha

I have to agree with the weather post, the pressures have been all over this winter making activity on the big hens slow/difficult.

I don't want to de-rail this thread, but I bet you would be surprised how many of the "trophy" fish (20lbs +) disappear in a live well, rubber boot or get wrapped in an ice fishing tent each year as well.... It's unfortunate!

[dmcbride]

Or now that it is being converted to a trophy walleye lake the hard core walleye guys are culling the pike.

[FlyTheory]

Originally Posted by muzzy

I hear all this talk about walleye ruining pike fishery Then explain how the lakes of northern Sask and manitoba are full of both pike and walleye and both are doing fine. Pike eat walleye walleye eat pike. And its not that walleye are an introduced species in Wab, they were proliferant 30 years back.
Personally I think the decline of big pike in wab is self inflicted by the explosion of fisherman on wab in past 8 years and the reason is all those photo's of everyone grinning holding up those big 20 pound pike. Try holding your breath for 3 to 5 minutes and see if you live! better yet strip down soak yourself in water and stand out in the minus 20 degree weather while holding your breath while waiting for the photo shoot. wonder how you would fare??? Its all the handing, fumbling to get camera's,taking the time for the photo shoots, oh lets get little johnny a pic holding the fish, all while its exposed to freezing conditions and gasping for oxygen. Personally I think the mortality rate on the catch...photo photo photo and release is a way higher than we think. If we dont outright kill them we weaken them perhaps to point of no return?? Just my opinion
Gord

Hey Gord,
You make a really good point. I think I can shed a little light on your question; luckily I have a little bit of validation since I'm currently studying this subject in university. Disclaimer though, I may be in correct about this real world situation
The reason, I believe, is with this large introduction of walleye (turns out to be 11.7 mil fish) has been a bit of a shock on the system. Regardless of the history of the lake, the pike have filled a fundamental niche as the predatory fish, they don't have to compete with any other species. The introduced walleye also create competition within this niche, since they generally predate for similar forage. The lake needs to level out this shock to the system, to an equilibrium, which will take time; this is what northern sask, ontario, and manatoba had and why there aren't many noticable fluctuations.
I think a lot of people need a visual about the statistics behind this kind of situation. Watch the first half of this video (not mine) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAFmykZ8McU. If you watch, the two factors on the graph to the left, for the sake of this discussion are predator (black line) and prey (grey line). both of the factors fluctuate, and when there is an influx in one, there is a decline in the other. The algorithm in this video are based on a population growth rates equation.
Now the video does not show this, but imagine there is a third factor that also predates on the same food source (the grey line), we would definitely see the "dips" in the graph (regarding the prey) become more extreme; which means there are less entities, which translates to less forage prey. When this happens, there is a point of famine and the predators start to die off until the forage rebounds. The process of increase and decline continue until the severity becomes smaller and smaller. This means the population has reached equilibrium, which Wab will reach someday. Theoretically.
I do also agree with you that poor handling does kill off big fish as well.

[cube]

[QUOTE=FlyTheory;2747289 This means the population has reached equilibrium, which Wab will reach someday. Theoretically. [/QUOTE]

The unfortunate part of the equilibrium for Wab is that ,as you indicated, the increase in biomass of walleye will come at the expense of the pike.

Which again I find sad as I thought we had some thing special with Wab. You could go to a plethora of lakes now and catch walleye but very few that had such pike.

[Safety D]

Originally Posted by Mike_W

For how many "DEAD" lakes you seem to find... I am pretty sure you are just a bad fisherman

Great bear lake sure Ain't dead

[FlyTheory]

Originally Posted by cube

The unfortunate part of the equilibrium for Wab is that ,as you indicated, the increase in biomass of walleye will come at the expense of the pike.

Which again I find sad as I thought we had some thing special with Wab. You could go to a plethora of lakes now and catch walleye but very few that had such pike.

Or even walleye in the NSR, 5 mins away from home

[tight line]

Originally Posted by cube

It is interesting you should pick North Wabasca.

North Wabasca, if you read the reports, now has about 1/6th the concentration of walleye compared to Pigeon lake and the pike population has been steadily dropping and as of 2010 has been considered a vulnerable population. So once again as we see the walleye population go up we see the pike population go down. Since 2006 the pike population of North Wabasca has dropped in half.

If you compare South Wabasca to North Wabasca; you see that South has 1/2 the concentration of walleye BUT 4 times the concentration of pike.

Yes have read the reports, and definately agree with you.. talked to a few of the COs up there as well. after fishing the lake for several years, i have seen bigger Walleye and fewer Big Pike. I think in this circumstance it is a case of increased fishing pressure, and the fact that everybody coming up there to fish is keeping their limit in Pike. So why have they not dropped the Pike Limit? Atleast by 1 fish.. This is something they should be doing on several other Lakes..Like Gull.

One thing i have noticed with Pike just from fishing North Wab. Is that alot of people are deadsticking/pickeral rigging with bait and from seeing how long the release time is on these fish, and watching the repeated surguries on some boats..It makes a guy cringe.. The amount of fish i have caught with Gills hanging out or hooks in them is sad. But regs are regs, And its like that on many lakes Wabamun Included. You can see the differnce when its somebody who is targeting these bigger fish with the proper gear, and those who are not. Im not saying i am by any means not guilty of handling fish in improper manner from time to time. Ive weighed fish with lip locks and dont own a cradle.. But get the fish back quickly , and like stated that is huge in survival rate. one thing i have noticed with the proper gear and using Sonar i can not only Target exactly what im looking for but 99% of the time the fish is Hooked Perfectly in the Lip.

One thing for sure is Pike area resilient fish, and i have seen them rebound in Rivers like the Battle in just a few years!! Hopefully this will be the case on some of the lakes..

[Kim473]

I think that the mortality rate for C&R is higher than we think. I don't agree with C&R. If you don't want fish taken from a lake, CLOSE it. Sure you have to have C&R for sizes and other things but for a lake that is completely C&R, close it to fishing completely. Seems to me from what I have heard and read here alone, The fishing preasure at Wab has trippled in the last few years. Gotta have a toll on the fish.

[FlyTheory]

Originally Posted by Kim473

I think that the mortality rate for C&R is higher than we think. I don't agree with C&R. If you don't want fish taken from a lake, CLOSE it. Sure you have to have C&R for sizes and other things but for a lake that is completely C&R, close it to fishing completely. Seems to me from what I have heard and read here alone, The fishing preasure at Wab has trippled in the last few years. Gotta have a toll on the fish.

Pretty strong statement. Why do you not believe in catch and release? C&R has some fatalities, but without the use of bait, the mortality is very low. With bait its higher.

[cube]

Originally Posted by Kim473

I think that the mortality rate for C&R is higher than we think. I don't agree with C&R. If you don't want fish taken from a lake, CLOSE it. Sure you have to have C&R for sizes and other things but for a lake that is completely C&R, close it to fishing completely. Seems to me from what I have heard and read here alone, The fishing preasure at Wab has trippled in the last few years. Gotta have a toll on the fish.

Fishing pressure has not tripled on Wab in the last couple of years. Wab has always had relatively high fishing pressure but is certainly lower than some.

[cube]

Originally Posted by tight line

Yes have read the reports, and definately agree with you.. talked to a few of the COs up there as well. after fishing the lake for several years, i have seen bigger Walleye and fewer Big Pike. I think in this circumstance it is a case of increased fishing pressure, and the fact that everybody coming up there to fish is keeping their limit in Pike. So why have they not dropped the Pike Limit? Atleast by 1 fish.. This is something they should be doing on several other Lakes..Like Gull.

One thing i have noticed with Pike just from fishing North Wab. Is that alot of people are deadsticking/pickeral rigging with bait and from seeing how long the release time is on these fish, and watching the repeated surguries on some boats..It makes a guy cringe.. The amount of fish i have caught with Gills hanging out or hooks in them is sad. But regs are regs, And its like that on many lakes Wabamun Included. You can see the differnce when its somebody who is targeting these bigger fish with the proper gear, and those who are not. Im not saying i am by any means not guilty of handling fish in improper manner from time to time. Ive weighed fish with lip locks and dont own a cradle.. But get the fish back quickly , and like stated that is huge in survival rate. one thing i have noticed with the proper gear and using Sonar i can not only Target exactly what im looking for but 99% of the time the fish is Hooked Perfectly in the Lip.

One thing for sure is Pike area resilient fish, and i have seen them rebound in Rivers like the Battle in just a few years!! Hopefully this will be the case on some of the lakes..

Totally agree with you that trout and walleye are the only managed species in this province to date. If the walleye numbers dropped that dramatically at a lake it would have been closed to retention immediately and might even have had areas of the lake closed off to angling altogether. If the new proposed regs come into effect this year perhaps we are seeing some light at the end of the tunnel with respect to pike management.

I have not fished Wabasca and I was wondering if you could tell me what the relative fishing pressures and retentions are like at North Wabasca vs South.

[Kim473]

Originally Posted by FlyTheory

Pretty strong statement. Why do you not believe in catch and release? C&R has some fatalities, but without the use of bait, the mortality is very low. With bait its higher.

You said it right here. I think if a lake needs help, close it to fishing. C&R is not the answer. I'm truely for closeing 1/2 if not all lakes for a year, then open for one and closed the next. Everyone has there opinion on handling the lakes but the best way would be to let mother nature do her thing. Wouldn't kill me to not fish for a year or two. Would probably save me a $ 1000 or more per year. Thats a lot of store bought fish. JMO.
Maybe licences should only be issued every second year to people or something like that?
From about 2000 to about 2008 I didn't fish at all. Didn't kill me but i'm sure a lot of C&R fish were killed / died in that time frame.

[cube]

Originally Posted by Kim473

You said it right here. I think if a lake needs help, close it to fishing. C&R is not the answer. I'm truely for closeing 1/2 if not all lakes for a year, then open for one and closed the next. Everyone has there opinion on handling the lakes but the best way would be to let mother nature do her thing. Wouldn't kill me to not fish for a year or two. Would probably save me a $ 1000 or more per year. Thats a lot of store bought fish. JMO.
Maybe licences should only be issued every second year to people or something like that?
From about 2000 to about 2008 I didn't fish at all. Didn't kill me but i'm sure a lot of C&R fish were killed / died in that time frame.

I'm all for new ideas but I'm not sure how closing ever other lake for a year and doubling the carnage at the others helps. Would you not just have increased fatalites at those lake that remain open. I would think with all the additional pressure you might also interrupt fish behaviour enough that it might actually make things worse.

As for closing down fishing licence oppourtunities There would be some huge lobby groups you would have to over come. Fishing equipment retailers, Fishing equipment manufacturers, Camp ground operators, Hotel owners. Boat Sales companies, Boat repair companies, restaurant owners, gas station owners, small store owners etc etc You are talking about a fair number of job losses.

Before we get to that point, and I don't think we are there yet in Alberta, I would rather see areas on lakes closed to angling. If a lake were 1/2 or a 1/4 closed (including spawning areas) I think you would accomplished what you have suggested but lessened the likely hood of the lobby groups getting quite so excited. This closed portion would act as the incubator for the lake as some fish would always exit into the fishable areas but never so many as to collapse the lake totally.

This and all other good ideas are of course predicated on having proper enforcement, which in Alberta seams to be just a dream we all have.

[Jamie Black R/T]

Originally Posted by cube

Fishing pressure has not tripled on Wab in the last couple of years. Wab has always had relatively high fishing pressure but is certainly lower than some.

I fished that lake a lot before the spill and can tell you 100% that the fishing pressure has not increased a bit. Its a lot less now than it was.

Wakeboard boat traffic seems to have increased but that disease is province wide IMO

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by Kim473

I'm truely for closeing 1/2 if not all lakes for a year, then open for one and closed the next.

Can you imagine the fishing pressure on those lakes if they closed half of the lakes up..... Cramming fisherman onto certain lakes is not the answer I would think.

[FlyTheory]

Originally Posted by cube

Before we get to that point, and I don't think we are there yet in Alberta, I would rather see areas on lakes closed to angling. If a lake were 1/2 or a 1/4 closed (including spawning areas) I think you would accomplished what you have suggested but lessened the likely hood of the lobby groups getting quite so excited. This closed portion would act as the incubator for the lake as some fish would always exit into the fishable areas but never so many as to collapse the lake totally.

This and all other good ideas are of course predicated on having proper enforcement, which in Alberta seams to be just a dream we all have.

I agree with the closed areas. Look at pinehurst; they closed off an entire bay all year, and the pike population is doing great. There isn't really an obvious place they can close off at Wab though.
Kim,
Closing a lake would do more bad than good. Plus I don't think I can live without fishing for more than a month

[EZM]

Originally Posted by fluxcore

Could it be the spill affecting the older fish that were present for it and shortend their lifespan due to toxicity

Funny thing is .... looking at recent water quality reports the water in Wabamun, even after the spill is way less toxic than the "average" lake in Alberta with the exception of a few elements related to the coal beds in the lake itself (and surrounding mining operations). Those particular elements are not "toxic" in the same sense as other, more common toxins that have an effect in terms of direct impact on life/life cycles of fish and invertebrates. (Killing, stunting, causing mutations, effecting recruitment, etc..)

The mining "toxins" are basically residuals left and measured within these same fish and invertebrates that are not believed to cause direct life/life cycle issues.

Kind of like Pembina and mercury - one of the largest and healthiest population of walleye, yet really high levels of mercury in the tissue kinda thing.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by FlyTheory

Hey Gord,
You make a really good point. I think I can shed a little light on your question; luckily I have a little bit of validation since I'm currently studying this subject in university. Disclaimer though, I may be in correct about this real world situation
The reason, I believe, is with this large introduction of walleye (turns out to be 11.7 mil fish) has been a bit of a shock on the system. Regardless of the history of the lake, the pike have filled a fundamental niche as the predatory fish, they don't have to compete with any other species. The introduced walleye also create competition within this niche, since they generally predate for similar forage. The lake needs to level out this shock to the system, to an equilibrium, which will take time; this is what northern sask, ontario, and manatoba had and why there aren't many noticable fluctuations.
I think a lot of people need a visual about the statistics behind this kind of situation. Watch the first half of this video (not mine) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAFmykZ8McU. If you watch, the two factors on the graph to the left, for the sake of this discussion are predator (black line) and prey (grey line). both of the factors fluctuate, and when there is an influx in one, there is a decline in the other. The algorithm in this video are based on a population growth rates equation.
Now the video does not show this, but imagine there is a third factor that also predates on the same food source (the grey line), we would definitely see the "dips" in the graph (regarding the prey) become more extreme; which means there are less entities, which translates to less forage prey. When this happens, there is a point of famine and the predators start to die off until the forage rebounds. The process of increase and decline continue until the severity becomes smaller and smaller. This means the population has reached equilibrium, which Wab will reach someday. Theoretically.
I do also agree with you that poor handling does kill off big fish as well.

Precisely my point in post #32.

The balance is out of whack with this immediate and massive introduction of competition.

I agree 100% ..... and I too, studied, Biology and Env. Sc. ....

Pretty simple theory and proven time after, time, after, time ..... why we keep doing the exact same thing over and over to our watersheds and expecting a different result is pure mismanagement and insanity.

[cube]

Originally Posted by FlyTheory

I agree with the closed areas. Look at pinehurst; they closed off an entire bay all year, and the pike population is doing great. There isn't really an obvious place they can close off at Wab though.
Kim,
Closing a lake would do more bad than good. Plus I don't think I can live without fishing for more than a month

I think they could easily come up with closure areas for Wab if they wanted to. They did this at Calling lake, Pinehurst like you mentioned, Pigeon Lake and might even be some more. My feeling is this will not help the pike decline in Wab though. I truly feel that it is not just a fishing pressure issue it is more a fact of 2 apex predators now having to share 1X worth of forge and all the stress that puts on the system. As your graphs show forage goes down predator fish populations go down, ergo pike populations decline. And as I have said before I think we already have enough walleye lakes with collapsed (or declining) pike populations and find it very sad that SRD should have introduced their walleye experiment at Wab.

(Bye the way I have fished Pinehurst a very long time and the pike population is now a very small faction of what it once was, though fishing pressure is about the same. The pike decline follows the walleye incline very well.)

[huntsfurfish]

FT and EZM if you guys went through what you say, you would know why they stalked that many walleye.

11 million over what, 5 years?

One large walleye produces as many as 500000 eggs. Of course we know that they dont all hatch or even get to fingerling size.

Most stocking programs go hard to insure it isnt a failure and you have good successive year classes.

Worst case is to many survive. PCR comes to mind as well.

This may or may not be the main reason for the decline. But it is clear there are other factors as well. Many are quick to exclude water temp. But even a 2-3 degree avg temp might make a difference in productivity. Equaling waters several hundred miles to the south. I dont know that there is a difference and havent looked for one. But it might be worth tracking down.
As you know in science you want all the parameters that might influence your data.

PS not trying to pick a fight just some thought.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

FT and EZM if you guys went through what you say, you would know why they stalked that many walleye.

11 million over what, 5 years?

One large walleye produces as many as 500000 eggs. Of course we know that they dont all hatch or even get to fingerling size.

Most stocking programs go hard to insure it isnt a failure and you have good successive year classes.

Worst case is to many survive. PCR comes to mind as well.

This may or may not be the main reason for the decline. But it is clear there are other factors as well. Many are quick to exclude water temp. But even a 2-3 degree avg temp might make a difference in productivity. Equaling waters several hundred miles to the south. I dont know that there is a difference and havent looked for one. But it might be worth tracking down.
As you know in science you want all the parameters that might influence your data.

PS not trying to pick a fight just some thought.

I don't take exception to your thoughts. And I have not worked in the field for over 20 years. I am in private practice in the private sector now .... In a completely different field altogether .... so no offence taken.

I don't have the data to support any conclusion precisely. All of the factors will have some measurable influence to the end result, how each individual variable (factor) contributes to the end result, without data, is just speculation.

We do know, without dispute, that there has been a major introduction into the lake (walleye). This is a dramatic change for the reasons stated (competition for food outweighing the walleye, themselves, as a enhancement as a food source). This is not a theory, it is a fact.

Without data - We do not know what other variables (changes) may have had an adverse impact ( water levels, temperatures, water quality, clarity, weeds and shoreline habitat, fishing pressure, etc...) but I have not observed any significant changes in these areas.

The rest, without data, is just speculation. Some speculation is pure wild guess, some is educated, some is data driven, some is opinions based on stuff they heard at the water cooler at work, or read on the forum from people ranging from having a qualified opinion down to a person with no clue speaking about something they have no knowledge about .... lol.... and .... it's hard to tell sometimes ......

Either way .... The walleye are clearly a major suspect (and probable contributor) to the decline of the Pike. To dispute it would be ignorant in my mind.

...... That's all I'm saying.

[RavYak]

Hard to argue about the walleye considering there are multiple spots on the lake where a guy catches more walleye then pike...

[tight line]

Originally Posted by cube

Totally agree with you that trout and walleye are the only managed species in this province to date. If the walleye numbers dropped that dramatically at a lake it would have been closed to retention immediately and might even have had areas of the lake closed off to angling altogether. If the new proposed regs come into effect this year perhaps we are seeing some light at the end of the tunnel with respect to pike management.

I have not fished Wabasca and I was wondering if you could tell me what the relative fishing pressures and retentions are like at North Wabasca vs South.

North is by far the most popular lake, its bigger, deeper, has a larger Walleye population, and has good launches and a campground, were as South only has a makeshift launch, is 90% very shallow, no Campground, has a smaller Walleye population, however it also has Sees way less anglers and most that go there are looking for Large Pike or just exploring some inlets on windy days( my case ) i would say the Walleye Population would be alot more vulnerable as they are congested in any areas of structure. I find it funny that the Limits are the same for both lakes..
Fishing the North i read the reports of decline in both Walleye and Pike, yet the numbers of fish i catch on a good day puts most other lakes i fish to shame, but knowing the lake and fish habits may be altering my views a little.

The amount of netting ERD does on the lakes must be giving them good data, but i was suprised to see how many nets they set.. It seemed Very excessive IMO...one rhing i have noticed is last year i caught fewer and less pike over 40" than the year before, and it was not uncommon to see big dead hens washed up on shore after a busy weekend.. Measured one that was 47"!! Am no longer working up there but will likely be back up there next year, will be interesting to see how it is

[huntsfurfish]

Another thing to consider could be loss of spawning habitat as well. Weed control?

[cube]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Another thing to consider could be loss of spawning habitat as well. Weed control?

As EZM mentioned here has been no noticeable loss and the water levels have been if anything higher which exposes more preferred pike spawning area's. Since the spill the lake has been watched much closer and Weed control/habitat etc has if anything been much better

[cube]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

This may or may not be the main reason for the decline. But it is clear there are other factors as well. Many are quick to exclude water temp. But even a 2-3 degree avg temp might make a difference in productivity. Equaling waters several hundred miles to the south. I dont know that there is a difference and havent looked for one. But it might be worth tracking down.
As you know in science you want all the parameters that might influence your data.

PS not trying to pick a fight just some thought.

The Science says that large pike are a cold water fish. As you go further and further south and temps warm up what you find are smaller and smaller pike that do not live as long. If I recall correctly the life expectancy of pike down south is 5 years and they remain small. It's not just coincidence that as you go north in the pikes range they get bigger and bigger with longer life expectancies.

Bass on the other hand are the opposite.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by cube

The Science says that large pike are a cold water fish. As you go further and further south and temps warm up what you find are smaller and smaller pike that do not live as long. If I recall correctly the life expectancy of pike down south is 5 years and they remain small. It's not just coincidence that as you go north in the pikes range they get bigger and bigger with longer life expectancies.

Bass on the other hand are the opposite.

With increase in age there is usually decrease in growth rates in northern waters.

So where did the AB Sport fishing record northern come from?

[cube]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

With increase in age there is usually decrease in growth rates in northern waters.

So where did the AB Sport fishing record northern come from?

Sorry I guess I was thinking further south than you were.

If your talking Travers, McGregor, Milk River Ridge, Crawling valley they are all actually colder than Wab by the looks of the data taken from the Sun Site at least.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by cube

Sorry I guess I was thinking further south than you were.

If your talking Travers, McGregor, Milk River Ridge, Crawling valley they are all actually colder than Wab by the looks of the data taken from the Sun Site at least.

Hi cube!

What site are you referring to? Could you post a link?

How does Wab compare with Keho, Twin, Newel and Badger?