Calling Lake Age Classes amazing!!!!

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

And crash the fisheries again. Then another 10 year or longer rebuilding.

Its best not to guess.



Please read:

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=325447

It confirms what some of us have been saying on here for years.

What does it confirm?

Can you tell me how many licences were issued in Alberta during the 70's and 80's as compared to 2016? Also can you tell me what the catch limits were back then?

Show me a case study where they used catch limits using a limit of 1 fish per person and using a slot size.

Pigeon, lac ste anne, lac la none, wabamun, lake isle, island lake, amisk lake, beaver lake, Pinehurst, spencer, gull, sylvan, isogun, buck, Baptist, slave, calling, orloff, rock island, moose, cold, margrite, lac la biche, wolf, these are just a few lakes in central Alberta that hold walleye. A one fish limit for all lakes across Alberta would take the pressure off the lakes that currently have a general retention limit (no tag required) while promoting healthy fish populations.

If a lake starts to become over fished, and populations decline, fishermen will naturally move on to more productive waters. Why would someone fish where there are no fish? Sure you can go to Pigeon, Sylvan, Wabamun, Lac Ste Anne, and a number of lakes across Alberta and catch 100's of walleye (that you can't keep), but how is the pike fishing? Alberta's conservation efforts are not working, even with such limited retention opportunity, the health of a balanced fishery is declining. I think its a case of too many lab coats with not enough common sense resting on top.

The way to deal with nature is naturally...

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

What does it confirm?

Can you tell me how many licences were issued in Alberta during the 70's and 80's as compared to 2016? Also can you tell me what the catch limits were back then?

Show me a case study where they used catch limits using a limit of 1 fish per person and using a slot size.

Pigeon, lac ste anne, lac la none, wabamun, lake isle, island lake, amisk lake, beaver lake, Pinehurst, spencer, gull, sylvan, isogun, buck, Baptist, slave, calling, orloff, rock island, moose, cold, margrite, lac la biche, wolf, these are just a few lakes in central Alberta that hold walleye. A one fish limit for all lakes across Alberta would take the pressure off the lakes that currently have a general retention limit (no tag required) while promoting healthy fish populations.

If a lake starts to become over fished, and populations decline, fishermen will naturally move on to more productive waters. Why would someone fish where there are no fish? Sure you can go to Pigeon, Sylvan, Wabamun, Lac Ste Anne, and a number of lakes across Alberta and catch 100's of walleye (that you can't keep), but how is the pike fishing? Alberta's conservation efforts are not working, even with such limited retention opportunity, the health of a balanced fishery is declining. I think its a case of too many lab coats with not enough common sense resting on top.

The way to deal with nature is naturally...

Did you not read it?

Some get it and some dont.

Anyway I posted this a while ago, same thing but included some will still not agree.
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=325450

Same thing. Not going to get into with you again. There are lots of threads on this subject. Look em up.

Also glad you do not run fisheries in AB.

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

If a lake starts to become over fished, and populations decline, fishermen will naturally move on to more productive waters. Why would someone fish where there are no fish?

It's scary to me that you think this is a "good" solution to managing our fisheries.

Your plan is to essentially fish out one lake and then have everyone move onto the next. I thought we learned better than than that about 100 years ago.

I guess not...

[Jamie Black R/T]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Did you not read it?

Some get it and some dont.

Anyway I posted this a while ago, same thing but included some will still not agree.
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=325450

Same thing. Not going to get into with you again. There are lots of threads on this subject. Look em up.

Also glad you do not run fisheries in AB.

Ive seen lots of posts against slot sizes for Alberta and I do acknowledge their merit.

What I dont see is proof that its anything more than a theory? Have slot sizes been implemented and failed in alberta?

Im sincerely asking for my own knowledge.

The only one I personally know of in the last 30 years fishing Alberta is the current slot on Calling Lake....Which is doing amazingly well.

I dont pretend to be a BIO...but i dont see a problem with questioning and or being educated on why their decisions come to light....its all of our resources after all.

[SNAPFisher]

No kidding!
Huntsfurfish and WalleyeDude summed it up nice.

The posters on here that thumb their nose at the science and bios and think they know better.

It seems there is this last hold out now in some minds that the 1 fish limit has never quite been tried in AB and should be. We had limits of course before but never exactly "1" per day all at once across AB. That'll do it this time...what a revelation. Oh sorry, "1" per day with slot size...that will really, really do it.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by Jamie Black R/T

Ive seen lots of posts against slot sizes for Alberta and I do acknowledge their merit.

What I dont see is proof that its anything more than a theory? Have slot sizes been implemented and failed in alberta?

Im sincerely asking for my own knowledge.

The only one I personally know of in the last 30 years fishing Alberta is the current slot on Calling Lake....Which is doing amazingly well.

I dont pretend to be a BIO...but i dont see a problem with questioning and or being educated on why their decisions come to light....its all of our resources after all.

It could work in less populated areas like Calling. I hope Calling continues to improve and it doesn't get decimated for good fishing. For the other areas with more pressure, guess what, tags. That is a slot size limit with the additional add of only allowing a certain number in that slot. Do you agree that is what tags are? I'm no Bio either but it seems sensible for the areas and lakes that need a bit more management. At least that is how I see it.

[Jamie Black R/T]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

It could work in less populated areas like Calling. I hope Calling continues to improve and it doesn't get decimated for good fishing. For the other areas with more pressure, guess what, tags. That is a slot size limit with the additional add of only allowing a certain number in that slot. Do you agree that is what tags are? I'm no Bio either but it seems sensible for the areas and lakes that need a bit more management. At least that is how I see it.

I dont disagree lakes closer to more people need more managment.

Im personally fine with the tag system. I get a few fish frys a year and mostly a catch and release family anyway.

I more just posted to see if anyone had any actual evidence of a slot size limit failing. In alberta or any other fishery with a high density of anglers.

Feeding my own curiousity. Lots of guys get their backs up shooting down the idea...but not a lot of actual evidence.

These are the same Bios that dumped 20 tons of walleye in wabamun remember I see no issue with questioning their methods.

[Talking moose]

Basically I feel slot sizes have they're place, and that's east of Alberta. Where those provinces have 100,000 fishalble waterbodies. Not so much here with 900. I believe tag system is the safest bet for Alberta waters.

[NSR Fisher]

Agree with Moose, tags are best bet.

If not tags, then have a max size rather than a minimum.

one fish UNDER 50cm makes more sense than 1 fish OVER 50cm for lakes like south buck, for example.

That would mean any that escape getting eaten are protected at once 50.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Did you not read it?

Some get it and some dont.

Anyway I posted this a while ago, same thing but included some will still not agree.
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=325450

Same thing. Not going to get into with you again. There are lots of threads on this subject. Look em up.

Also glad you do not run fisheries in AB.

I read it.

Now do you care to answer my question on the stats for the 70's and 80's?

Of course the fishery collapsed!!!!

Take a look at both the number of anglers in Alberta, and the catch limits!!!

More anglers keeping 10x more fish than the limit I suggested, um hmmmmmm, I wonder why it collapsed....

Back then a family of 4 could go to a lake for the weekend and come home with 40 fish.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxx


Can you see the difference in x's?

Now add more families taking home 40 x's in the 80's as compared to the 4 x's and you'll start to see part where I'm coming from.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Walleyedude

It's scary to me that you think this is a "good" solution to managing our fisheries.

Your plan is to essentially fish out one lake and then have everyone move onto the next. I thought we learned better than than that about 100 years ago.

I guess not...

No, my plan is not to fish out any lake, my plan is to even out the fishing pressure rather than kill the good fishing holes that are left!

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

No, my plan is not to fish out any lake, my plan is to even out the fishing pressure rather than kill the good fishing holes that are left!

That isn't what you posted though. Your post stated that anglers would move on from a lake when the fishing became poor. Thereby focusing their efforts on a different lake. They'll focus on the new lake until the fishing on that lake becomes poor, at which point they'll move on again.

Regardless of how much you spread out the pressure, that pressure will affect the fisheries. It will affect every fishery differently and in different time frames, but the end result of what you posted is to gradually kill all of the good fishing holes. It's inevitable.

While I realize that it's an extreme case, and not what you're suggesting, the decline of PCR should be a pretty shocking example for people of the effects of open harvest on most AB lakes.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by Jamie Black R/T

I dont disagree lakes closer to more people need more managment.

Im personally fine with the tag system. I get a few fish frys a year and mostly a catch and release family anyway.

I more just posted to see if anyone had any actual evidence of a slot size limit failing. In alberta or any other fishery with a high density of anglers.

Feeding my own curiousity. Lots of guys get their backs up shooting down the idea...but not a lot of actual evidence.

These are the same Bios that dumped 20 tons of walleye in wabamun remember I see no issue with questioning their methods.

Sure! For one, Pigeon Lake managed slot sized limits (i.e. tags).

All jokes aside though, I do see at as the same thing. The difference for a "Kurt" is that he would prefer it to be less managed and spread out. He also apparently is still living in the 70s and thinks that can compare to today...
I think it is fine as it is today.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Sure! For one, Pigeon Lake managed slot sized limits (i.e. tags).

All jokes aside though, I do see at as the same thing. The difference for a "Kurt" is that he would prefer it to be less managed and spread out. He also apparently is still living in the 70s and thinks that can compare to today...
I think it is fine as it is today.

I was comparing it to the 70's and 80's because that's the example huntsfurfish brought up. Sheesh, pull off the blinders.

I'm not asking for less management, I'm asking for PROPER MANAGEMENT. There is more than one spicies of fish in Alberta that contribute to maintaining a healthy ecosystem. The way you want it, the way that is currently not working, is to have all the lakes loaded with walleye, the hell with all the other fish. Now not only do we have to recover from a 10 walleye per person retention limit from the 70's and 80's, but we have to figure out how we are going to balance what we have left.

Oh I know, let's put a zero retention limit on pike at calling lake now because everyone who wants to keep a walleye now has to go there because it's one of the few lakes left where we can keep one. Oops, I guess there was more than one spiecies of fish in that lake. Who would have seen that coming hey???

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I was comparing it to the 70's and 80's because that's the example huntsfurfish brought up. Sheesh, pull off the blinders.

I'm not asking for less management, I'm asking for PROPER MANAGEMENT. There is more than one spicies of fish in Alberta that contribute to maintaining a healthy ecosystem. The way you want it, the way that is currently not working, is to have all the lakes loaded with walleye, the hell with all the other fish. Now not only do we have to recover from a 10 walleye per person retention limit from the 70's and 80's, but we have to figure out how we are going to balance what we have left.

Oh I know, let's put a zero retention limit on pike at calling lake now because everyone who wants to keep a walleye now has to go there because it's one of the few lakes left where we can keep one. Oops, I guess there was more than one spiecies of fish in that lake. Who would have seen that coming hey???

Yep, fishing in Alberta is terrible. You can simply move some where they have a 1 slot size limit for everything. You can be happy there. Otherwise take some suggestions about taking action. Posting on forum to other anglers will only make your face redder.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Yep, fishing in Alberta is terrible. You can simply move some where they have a 1 slot size limit for everything. You can be happy there. Otherwise take some suggestions about taking action. Posting on forum to other anglers will only make your face redder.

Do you work for sustainable resources?

Honest question here, can you tell me why opening up the lakes province wide to a 1 walleye per person retention limit will collapse our fishery?

[Jamie Black R/T]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Sure! For one, Pigeon Lake managed slot sized limits (i.e. tags).

LOL

Just for the record Im all for well managed fisheries....if that means C&R, tags, slot, minimum size as it is now, then so be it.

I dont think the answer is the open everything up to retention to spread out pressure either...but i do think we can do better and people showing interest in the methods employed whether, for or against, is a good thing.

What about a slot on lakes already open to retention? Slave for example....we havent cleaned the lake out of spawners yet at 1 over 43cm....imagine if people stopped eating the few 5 or 6 pounders caught out of there and let those big girls acutally drop their eggs. I know, I know....the fish would all get kept before they spawn....but would they? how do we know? surely this has been tried in other jurisdictions with similar angling pressure?

Ive asked the question several times to bios, Co's and easy to irritate old guys with 100,000 dollar tournament boats...and nobody can give an example of a failed attempt at slot retention in Alberta....but every single one of them is 100% "sure" it wouldnt work.

They may be right. But what if they're wrong?

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I read it.

Now do you care to answer my question on the stats for the 70's and 80's?

Of course the fishery collapsed!!!!

Take a look at both the number of anglers in Alberta, and the catch limits!!!

More anglers keeping 10x more fish than the limit I suggested, um hmmmmmm, I wonder why it collapsed....

Back then a family of 4 could go to a lake for the weekend and come home with 40 fish.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxx


Can you see the difference in x's?

Now add more families taking home 40 x's in the 80's as compared to the 4 x's and you'll start to see part where I'm coming from.

Im well aware of the fisheries in the 70, 80 and later. I was there too. This has been hashed many times, you have been on here as ling as I have so you probably even seen them before.

Wrong at least in part. Fishermen in general are much better fishermen now then they were then. Look at the equipment we have! Also with the internet now, how to catch more fish and learn where has changed the playing field. Also Seniors more now than ever before and dont require a license. All of them better fishermen because of advances and knowledge which is 100's of time easier to attain.

You also have to realize budget plays a really uge part in this as well. So many factors involved. Water body nutrient levels, poaching, spawning success which may be impacted by habitat loss and many others.

Nobody is saying there werent problems then(70s and 80s). Because there was. Its just not an easy fix. I do not want to see any more collapsed fisheries because I may not be around to see the recovery. Recoveries can take a decade or more.

Edit: I believe I am on record saying I would like lower limits as well.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Jamie Black R/T

LOL

Just for the record Im all for well managed fisheries....if that means C&R, tags, slot, minimum size as it is now, then so be it.

I dont think the answer is the open everything up to retention to spread out pressure either...but i do think we can do better and people showing interest in the methods employed whether, for or against, is a good thing.

What about a slot on lakes already open to retention? Slave for example....we havent cleaned the lake out of spawners yet at 1 over 43cm....imagine if people stopped eating the few 5 or 6 pounders caught out of there and let those big girls acutally drop their eggs. I know, I know....the fish would all get kept before they spawn....but would they? how do we know? surely this has been tried in other jurisdictions with similar angling pressure?

Ive asked the question several times to bios, Co's and easy to irritate old guys with 100,000 dollar tournament boats...and nobody can give an example of a failed attempt at slot retention in Alberta....but every single one of them is 100% "sure" it wouldnt work.

They may be right. But what if they're wrong?

With slot limits under spawning age/size. You risk the fishery. Slot limits should be monitored closely. Need way more money to do it yearly. Now they are at about every 5 years. By then easy collapse.

There are other ways to do things but under the circumstances This appears to be the best. Fish have to spawn at least once and possibly 2 or even 3 times before getting to minimum harvest size.

Edit: Tags are a way to monitor/regulate the slot, just another management tool.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I was comparing it to the 70's and 80's because that's the example huntsfurfish brought up. Sheesh, pull off the blinders.

I'm not asking for less management, I'm asking for PROPER MANAGEMENT. There is more than one spicies of fish in Alberta that contribute to maintaining a healthy ecosystem. The way you want it, the way that is currently not working, is to have all the lakes loaded with walleye, the hell with all the other fish. Now not only do we have to recover from a 10 walleye per person retention limit from the 70's and 80's, but we have to figure out how we are going to balance what we have left.

Oh I know, let's put a zero retention limit on pike at calling lake now because everyone who wants to keep a walleye now has to go there because it's one of the few lakes left where we can keep one. Oops, I guess there was more than one spiecies of fish in that lake. Who would have seen that coming hey???

There is proper management! And it has been improving.
When Walleye crashed in the 80s there was a huge outcry to fix it! They did. Unfortunately those that liked to eat fish switched to pike and perch. I will admit they were a bit slow to react, but the squeaky wheel got the grease. And that is being corrected.

[huntsfurfish]

If you want trophy fish now a days you have to work for them. We have some of the best walleye fishing around. You can actually have 100 fish days some days in Southern Alberta and probably most of the rest of Alberta too. With most of the fish between 35 and 49cm. with an occasional fish over 50 or 55 to eat if you choose. and occasional fish to 75 or more. But lakes /reservoirs close to Calgary/Edmonton can be higher pressured and even moved to tags or zero limits just because of the fishing pressure. But that really should not surprise anyone.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

There is proper management! And it has been improving.
When Walleye crashed in the 80s there was a huge outcry to fix it! They did. Unfortunately those that liked to eat fish switched to pike and perch. I will admit they were a bit slow to react, but the squeaky wheel got the grease. And that is being corrected.

It has been improving? That's why they are switching to zero retention for pike on some lakes now? I'm not sure I agree with your version of improving.

As far as your theory of electronics and how much better we are at angling now, I can't see how the best fisherman in the world can have a bigger impact on a lake with a 1 fish limit, than a fisherman from the 80's with a 10 fish limit?

Zero retention limits have improved walleye limits on some lakes, but it has also had a negative effect on other species. People have been compensating by keeping more pike, creating the need to impose a zero retention limit on pike. It's also creating an unbalanced ecosystem, it's a challenge to catch a pike now a days in walleye infested waters, lakes where you can go and catch 60 walleye in 3 hours but you can't keep any.


I'll admit that I'm no biologist, but the way I see it is in order to have a healthy ecosystem you need a healthy balance.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

It has been improving? That's why they are switching to zero retention for pike on some lakes now? I'm not sure I agree with your version of improving.

As far as your theory of electronics and how much better we are at angling now, I can't see how the best fisherman in the world can have a bigger impact on a lake with a 1 fish limit, than a fisherman from the 80's with a 10 fish limit?

Zero retention limits have improved walleye limits on some lakes, but it has also had a negative effect on other species. People have been compensating by keeping more pike, creating the need to impose a zero retention limit on pike. It's also creating an unbalanced ecosystem, it's a challenge to catch a pike now a days in walleye infested waters, lakes where you can go and catch 60 walleye in 3 hours but you can't keep any.


I'll admit that I'm no biologist, but the way I see it is in order to have a healthy ecosystem you need a healthy balance.

Electronics and effects of internet. - Not everyone was getting a limit back then, some did. Skunked was not uncommon then and no one to show you like there is now. Now with 1 - 3 limit, more people limiting out because what took years for fishermen to learn now may only take days to learn.
Example: ling at PCR. Awesome to crap in under 3 years.
Advent of fishfinders, amazing boats, underwater cameras etc. Tackle improvements, rod improvements and other tackle.
Difference in limits is people are getting their 1 fish limit. And 10 fish limit not all were getting it. Betting poaching and such was different then compared to now. 1-3 limit likely more poaching.
Much of the rest of your post was answered in the other posts.

Balance is always the key. But a little harder to deal with when humans are involved.

While I fish mostly for Walleye and Trout, I find that fishing at least down South is awesome.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Electronics and effects of internet. - Not everyone was getting a limit back then, some did. Skunked was not uncommon then and no one to show you like there is now. Now with 1 - 3 limit, more people limiting out because what took years for fishermen to learn now may only take days to learn.
Example: ling at PCR. Awesome to crap in under 3 years.
Advent of fishfinders, amazing boats, underwater cameras etc. Tackle improvements, rod improvements and other tackle.
Difference in limits is people are getting their 1 fish limit. And 10 fish limit not all were getting it. Betting poaching and such was different then compared to now. 1-3 limit likely more poaching.
Much of the rest of your post was answered in the other posts.

Balance is always the key. But a little harder to deal with when humans are involved.

While I fish mostly for Walleye and Trout, I find that fishing at least down South is awesome.

What's the limit of ling at pcr?

And are you suggesting that people are keeping more fish nowadays days, even with lower limits, because they have a fish finder and the internet?

And are you saying that the current laws are remotely promoting a balance in our fishery???

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by Jamie Black R/T

LOL

Just for the record Im all for well managed fisheries....if that means C&R, tags, slot, minimum size as it is now, then so be it.

I dont think the answer is the open everything up to retention to spread out pressure either...but i do think we can do better and people showing interest in the methods employed whether, for or against, is a good thing.

What about a slot on lakes already open to retention? Slave for example....we havent cleaned the lake out of spawners yet at 1 over 43cm....imagine if people stopped eating the few 5 or 6 pounders caught out of there and let those big girls acutally drop their eggs. I know, I know....the fish would all get kept before they spawn....but would they? how do we know? surely this has been tried in other jurisdictions with similar angling pressure?

Ive asked the question several times to bios, Co's and easy to irritate old guys with 100,000 dollar tournament boats...and nobody can give an example of a failed attempt at slot retention in Alberta....but every single one of them is 100% "sure" it wouldnt work.

They may be right. But what if they're wrong?

Yeah, I'm all for that. Management specific to the region. If certain lakes further away from crowds can work with a slot size, great. Calling, Seibert (maybe), ..and the further you go North, the less pressure. Too bad Southern boys

For the rest of the lakes, tags.

Edit: Aren't we already doing this with tags....is it the process of tagging that puts people off? It really is not hard to do. The costs are low and put back into the system...most of it.

I know we are just talking walleye here but they are popular and apparently need a bit more thought.

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Do you work for sustainable resources?

Honest question here, can you tell me why opening up the lakes province wide to a 1 walleye per person retention limit will collapse our fishery?

No, just fish a lot and do well. I can also live with a tag system where it is needed. Keep grasping. You realize still that you are a forum and you can tell me on you want and that doesn't do jack $#it, right? I appreciate that you have an opinion on something that hasn't been exactly tried. Maybe lobby for that to get added to the next survey and see what the province thinks. I wish you luck....

[SNAPFisher]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

What's the limit of ling at pcr?

And are you suggesting that people are keeping more fish nowadays days, even with lower limits, because they have a fish finder and the internet?

And are you saying that the current laws are remotely promoting a balance in our fishery???

Maybe stop fishing and taking to restore the balance

If you think a lake is managed by limits alone and somehow that will do it...
like others have said, I'm glad you are not managing any fishery.

Your not going to get this or agree so we can just agree to disagree. In the meantime, do something about if you are unhappy.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by SNAPFisher

Maybe stop fishing and taking to restore the balance

If you think a lake is managed by limits alone and somehow that will do it...
like others have said, I'm glad you are not managing any fishery.

Your not going to get this or agree so we can just agree to disagree. In the meantime, do something about if you are unhappy.

Why do you have such hurt feelings? Apparently you are a mighty fisherman but you haven't been able to tell me what would be the downside to a one fish limit.

I don't care that you insult me, and I don't care that we don't agree, I'd just like for you to show me how our current system is any better than what I suggested. I've pointed out how our current system is creating an imbalance in fish ratios, created high fishing pressure on lakes where retention is allowed, and if you have a look at the article posted by Don, what a mess wabamun has become.



Approximately 24 weekends in the open water season, the average licenced angler gets out for what, 6 times? I'm not talking about awesome fishermen like yourself, I'm talking about the average amongst licensed anglers in Alberta. There is what, say 280,000 licenses sold in Alberta? Now say they all kept their limit on all 6 trips, that's about 1.7 million province wide. How many walleye are reproduced in a year in Alberta? Each female drops what? 300,000 400,000 500,000 eggs?

Is it selfish to want to be able to eat fish, is it selfish to destroy a pike and perch habitat so you can let 100 walleye go out n a day?

[Talking moose]

Kurt. I think if you opened every lake to a one fish limit, people from Edmonton for example, would decimate the closest lakes to the city and when those lakes right close to Edmonton were fished out(because of the convienance and proximity to a large city), they would focus on the next closest lakes moving outward from the city as the lakes started to fail them. I picture an army of ants or caterpillars moving outward from the city eating everything in its path until the only lakes worth fishing are the farthest of lakes. Not sure if it would happen that way but that's the pic I get.

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Zero retention limits have improved walleye limits on some lakes, but it has also had a negative effect on other species. People have been compensating by keeping more pike, creating the need to impose a zero retention limit on pike. It's also creating an unbalanced ecosystem, it's a challenge to catch a pike now a days in walleye infested waters, lakes where you can go and catch 60 walleye in 3 hours but you can't keep any.

Do you not see the irony in this post?

You've posted the exact evidence I would use to suggest that a slot limit would be a catastrophic failure.

The regs focused the retention on pike, which were previously largely ignored, and within a very short period of time, the pike fisheries have collapsed or been thrown completely out of balance.

The reason it was so hard to catch a legal fish in many of the reservoirs down south is very simple, they got removed from the system by anglers as soon as they were legal. There is zero coincidence involved in the fact that the numbers of fish being caught above the retention limit size, whatever that limit is on a specific lake, is a fraction of the fish being caught below, and often JUST below, the retention limit size.

Spreading the retention around among many lakes and several species may slow the decline, but make no mistake, it will result in a decline on heavily pressured lakes. The proof of that is pretty much undeniable, you've just posted it yourself.

The power that retention limits have is staggering.